Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For Borough of Liverpool (Scotland Division), in the room of Right Honourable Thomas Power O'Connor, deceased.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. J. H. THOMAS:—
On or before the 17th day of December a printed copy of every Private Bill for winch application is intended to be made during the present Session shall be deposited at the Office of the Lord Privy Seal.
If it appears to the Lord Privy Seal that any such Bill contains provisions relating to works the execution of which would substantially contribute to the relief of unemployment ho may on or before the 15th day of January send to Mr. Speaker a certicate to that effect and notify the Promoters of such Bill accordingly, and a Bill with respect to which such a certificate and notice is so given is hereinafter referred to as a certified Bill; and where in the opinion of the Lord Privy Seal any such Bill, in addition to containing such provisions as aforesaid, contains other provisions distinct therefrom not relating to such works as aforesaid, the certificate Shall state which of the provisions (hereinafter referred to as certified provisions) are the provisions of the Bill which relate to such works as aforesaid.
As soon as may be after it has been received by him, every such certificate shall be laid by Mr. Speaker upon the Table of the House.
In the case of a certified Bill the Standing Orders relating to Private Business shall have effect subject to the following provisions, and so far as inconsistent with those provisions shall not apply:—

(1) Every such Bill introduced into the House of Commons shall be ordered to be read a Second time on the fourth day after the day on which it is presented or, if the House is not sitting on that day, then on the next day thereafter on which the House would ordinarily sit;
(2) Where any such Bill contains both certified and other provisions then, as soon as the Bill has been read a Second
210
time, a Motion may be made with or without notice as to the Committee to which the certified provisions shall be committed, and if such a Motion be agreed to the certified provisions shall proceed separately as a certified Bill, and the remaining provisions of the Bill shall stand committed to the Committee of Selection or the Local Legislation Committee, as the case may be, and any Petition which has been deposited against the Bill shall be deemed to be a Petition for all purposes against each of the separate Bills, or if notice in writing to that effect is given in the Committee and Private Bill Office by the Petitioner against such one of the Bills as is specified in such notice;
(3) Any certified Bill promoted by a company already constituted by Act of Parliament or by any company, society, association, or co-partnership, whether a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1929, or otherwise constituted, shall not after Second Reading be referred to the Examiners, but compliance with Standing Orders 62, 63, 64, 65 and 66, or any of them, shall be proved before the Committee to whom such Bill is referred;
(4) Any Committee to whom a certified Bill is referred shall have leave to consider it forthwith, provided that a filled-up Bill shall have been previously deposited, and shall hear and determine any question of locus standi;
(5) Any certified Bill if amended in Committee shall be ordered to lie upon the Table, and shall be taken into consideration on the day on which the House shall next sit provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited, and the Third Reading of such Bill may be taken immediately after the consideration of the Bill as amended;
(6) Any certified Bill, if not amended in Committee, shall be ordered to be read the Third time on the day on which the House shall next sit;
(7) All Amendments made by the House of Lords to a certified Bill shall, if unopposed, be considered forthwith and, if opposed, shall be considered at such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall determine.

When it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the House of Lords;
(8) Where the Promoters of a Private Bill have not deposited a Petition for such Bill on or before the 17th day of December and the Lord Privy Seal sends to Mr. Speaker such a certificate as aforesaid, the Promoters of such Bill shall have leave to deposit a Petition for the Bill in the Committee and Private Bill Office, and such Petition shall stand referred to the Examiners."

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Object!

Mr. SPEAKER: Objection taken. What day?

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Robert Young): To-morrow at 7.30.

Mr. THOMAS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: If it is objected to, we must put it off.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: We could not hear what your Ruling was, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: I said that we must put it off, if it is objected to, until tomorrow at 7.30.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Until this day 12 months!

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1928.

Copy ordered,
of Accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1928, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1929; (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (SUBSIDISED WAGES).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 1.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has considered the advisability of using the Unemployment Fund for the purpose of subsidising wages in respect of the anticipated schemes of industrial development, in consideration for the employment, on such work, of a minimum percentage of workers engaged through Ministry of Labour Employment Exchanges?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I would refer the hon. and
gallant Gentleman to the reply which I gave on the 19th November to the hon. Member for North Newcastle (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle), of which I am sending him a copy.

WORK SCHEMES (BRITISH MATERIALS).

Major COLVILLE: 2.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has issued instructions to local authorities carrying out State-aided relief schemes that British materials only shall be used on such schemes?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, Sir. A circular has been issued to local authorities, in which, among the conditions governing Government grants for approved schemes of work to relieve unemployment, it is laid down that all materials which are required for assisted works shall, so far as practicable, be of United Kingdom origin, and all manufactured articles shall be of United Kingdom manufacture, subject, however, to such exceptions as may be found to be necessary or desirable in any particular case having regard to all the circumstances, including the comparative price of British and foreign articles.

Mr. SMITHERS: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that policy with the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove the Safeguarding of Industries Duties?

Major COLVILLE: Do I understand from the answer that the circular has gone out to the local authorities?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, last week.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any objections from local authorities saying that they cannot comply with the circular?

Mr. THOMAS: None whatever.

Mr. EVERARD: Does this mean that if the foreign article is cheaper, the Government are going to buy the English?

NEW INDUSTRIES (MUNICIPAL ENTERPRISE).

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 3.
asked the Lord Privy Seal the attitude of his Department towards the promotion of civic weeks; and whether it gives encouragement to local authorities to organise them in the interests of trade and employment?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. Member to a reply which I gave on the 3rd December to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that reply, from which he will see that I welcome any manifestation of the spirit of civic enterprise.

SOUTHWARK.

Mr. DAY: 4.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any schemes for the purpose of relieving unemployment have been submitted to him by the Southwark Borough Council; and, if so, what action he has taken in the matter?

Mr. THOMAS: The Southwark Borough Council applied to the Unemployment Grants Committee on 29th October for assistance on terms not involving the employment of transferred men in respect of street paving works estimated to cost about £10,000. The Council was informed that assistance could only be granted provided employment was given to a proportion of men transferred from the depressed mining areas. This is still a necessary condition, but the proportion of transferred labour may now be modified on the lines announced in the House on the 4th November.

Mr. DAY: What proportion were they requested to take?

Mr. THOMAS: I have not the details.

Commander WILLIAMS: Will the Lord Privy Seal explain why transferred labour is so good now when it was not six months ago?

LONDON TUBE RAILWAYS (EXTENSIONS).

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: 7.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the new proposals for the control of London traffic will in any way delay his schemes for the extension of London tubes?

Mr. THOMAS: I presume that the hon. Member refers to certain extensions and improvements of the London tube railways which are the subject of an application under the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act. I do not think the inauguration of these works should be delayed as a result of the recent announcement of the Government's
policy in regard to the co-ordination of passenger transport in the London traffic area.

Sir G. HAMILTON: 8.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will encourage by some financial assistance the immediate building of a tube east of London to Ilford and beyond as an integral part of the new London traffic scheme?

Mr. THOMAS: It would be open to any authority or company proposing to build a tube from London to Ilford and beyond, to make application under the Development Act for Government financial assistance in connection with any such scheme.

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.

Mr. LAWTHER: 9.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will seek to give to rural district councils a larger grant than at present allowed by the Unemployment Grants Committee for the essential work of improving their water supplies?

Mr. THOMAS: As stated by my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster during the Debate on the 4th of last month, the present Government have offered greatly improved terms for certain types of work, including rural water supplies. The new terms, which are generous, provide for grants equivalent to approximately 41 per cent. of the capital cost, as compared with 26 per cent. under the old terms, and must be regarded as the final offer of the Government.

Mr. HASLAM: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any applications from rural district councils for these grants since this offer?

Mr. THOMAS: Quite a number; the changed terms have certainly brought forward a number of applications.

Mr. GOULD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the de-rating proposals, which have affected the value of a penny rate in agricultural areas, make it impossible for them to consider schemes of work?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that that has anything to do with this question.

Ex-SERVICE MEN.

Major HARVEY: 10.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what arrangements he is making to ensure the employment of a proportion of ex-service men in all Government-assisted schemes; and what is that proportion?

Mr. THOMAS: It is a general instruction to Employment Exchanges to give preference, other things being equal, to ex-service men when submitting men for employment. In particular, it is a condition for the receipt of assistance from the Unemployment Grants Committee that normally 75 per cent. of the men employed on relief works shall be ex-service men.

Major HARVEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman find any difficulty in maintaining the 75 per cent. of ex-service men in view of the fact that there is a certain amount of transference of miners and others from necessitous areas?

Mr. THOMAS: There is this difficulty. Certain ex-service men's organisations made representations to us that it is difficult sometimes to apply a fixed percentage, and we have laid down a general principle and told them that they must have a certain elasticity in giving effect to it.

WORK SCHEMES, DURHAM COUNTY AND LIVERPOOL.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 11.
asked the Lord Privy Seal how many men have been employed in Durham county on work schemes sanctioned and assisted financially by his Department and other Government Departments; and whether he can give an estimate of the number of workmen indirectly employed in the manufacture and distribution of the materials required for these schemes?

Mr. THOMAS: According to reports submitted by local authorities in the County of Durham, the number of men employed on 25th October, the latest date for which figures are available, on schemes assisted by grants from the Ministry of Transport and Ministry of Agriculture, and from the Unemployment Grants Committee, was 1,744. As regards the last part of the question, no estimate is possible.

Mr. BATEY: Does the Lord Privy Seal expect to be able to employ any more
men, and is he aware that there are 30,000 men unemployed in the County of Durham?

Mr. THOMAS: I have no idea as to what further applications have been sent in from Durham. I have reason to believe that there are some. It would be wrong for me to assume that there were not more schemes—I believe there are some—but I do not know the details.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 18.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, seeing that the Liverpool City Council has submitted unemployment relief schemes totalling £2,800,000 in respect of roads, and £2,365,000 under the unemployment grants scheme, and that none of the schemes involved has yet been approved, he will say what is the reason for the delay in approving schemes which should provide work for a large number of men?

Mr. THOMAS: I cannot agree that the situation is as suggested in the question, but, as the answer is a long one and involves figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SANDHAM: In view of the fact that we have 57,000 people on the unemployed register in Liverpool, and 69,000 people receiving Poor Law relief, can the right hon. Gentleman allocate responsibility for the delay?

Mr. THOMAS: It would be unfair for me to say to the Liverpool municipal authorities what they should do. They know perfectly well the terms which have been offered, and they know the position with regard to the unemployed in their district, and I not only await but shall welcome an application from them.

Mr. SANDHAM: Has any application for grant been made in connection with any of the schemes submitted?

Mr. THOMAS: There have been a number of schemes. As the answer is so long I am circulating it. When he reads it, the hon. Member will then see the details of the schemes.

Following is the answer:

The Ministry of Transport gave approval in principle to certain schemes, estimated to cost over £800,000, as long ago as 14th October, and on the 25th of that month the city council informed that
Department of the schemes they were prepared to put in hand. Since then the necessary details of some of the schemes have been submitted and these are being examined. On the 5th instant the city council were informed that no objection was raised to commencement of these works without prejudice to the question of grant. The total value of the schemes so far submitted to the Unemployment Grants Committee is some £260,000. This figure includes schemes totalling £80,000 which it was not found possible to approve for grant. Of the balance of £180,000 now under consideration schemes totalling £150,000 were not submitted until the latter end of November. In the time available it has therefore not been possible for their examination to be completed.

THAMES CATCHMENT AREA (DRAINAGE SCHEMES).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 12.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any works have been sanctioned which would mitigate unemployment and make further provision against the Thames floods?

Captain MACDONALD: 14.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of the existence of a plan for dealing with the periodical flooding of the Thames Valley; and, if so, can he tell the House how many men would be employed on such a scheme and what steps he proposes to take to encourage the responsible authorities to put it into operation?

Mr. THOMAS: A comprehensive drainage scheme for the Thames catchment area has been discussed at various times. Its execution must await the legislation which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture hopes to introduce in the near future. Meanwhile, limited schemes for the Wey Valley and the Thames at the Wey outlet have been submitted. These schemes have been the subject of local inquiries, and it is expected that a decision will shortly be given. These limited schemes would, if sanctioned, employ, in respect of the Thames 375 men for three years, and in respect of the Wey 600 men for 18 months. In addition schemes for the Thames at the mouth are under consideration by the London County Council.

Sir K. WOOD: Is not the Lord Privy Seal aware of the seriousness of the position at the present time so far as the Thames floods are concerned, and could he not really do something immediately, in the course of his efforts to mitigate unemployment?

Mr. THOMAS: It is a cause of serious concern, but it is not so serious as in the case of the last Thames floods. If legislation had then been introduced, we could have got on with the work.

Sir K. WOOD: Is not the Lord Privy Seal aware that the matter is very urgent indeed, and cannot he take some steps?

HON. MEMBERS: Why did you not take steps?

Mr. THOMAS: It is because it is so urgent that I have had interviews with the authorities, but, unfortunately, legislation is necessary.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: Does the statement outlined include anything about the River Lea, which is very much bound up with the flooding scheme?

NAVAL PROGRAMME (ALTERNATIVE WORK).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 19.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government will give special consideration to the case of the men thrown out of work due to the decision to cancel or slow down the building of warships and see if some alternative work can be provided for these men this winter?

Mr. THOMAS: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on 26th November.

STATISTICS.

Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYER: 20.
asked the Lord Privy Seal how many more persons are in employment to-day than there were in 1914?

Mr. THOMAS: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 5th December, there are no statistics available regarding the numbers of persons employed in industry in 1914 comparable with those derived from the working of the Unemployment Insurance Acts at the present time. It is, therefore, only
possible to give an estimate. I am advised that the increase in the numbers in employment over 1914 may be estimated at between 800,000 and 1,000,000.

Sir G. BOWYER: May I ask whether that state of affairs causes the right hon. Gentleman some gratfication?

Mr. THOMAS: Everything which means that more people are employed ought to be gratifying to hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Sir G. BOWYER: Then why, when we were in office, did the right hon. Gentleman pour scorn upon us Conservatives when we, too, were gratified with this increase?

WORKERS WITH RESOURCES (APPEAL).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 22.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the fact that many members of the community with some resources are depriving others of legitimate work, he proposes to issue an appeal to them to desist forthwith from pursuing their present occupations in the interests of the unemployed?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not think that an appeal on such lines would meet the situation.

HOME DEVELOPMENT (GOVERNMENT PROGRAMME).

Mr. BRACKEN: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has agreed to make provision for a Treasury grant to the proposed Employment and Development Board?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is to-day publishing a White Paper giving particulars of the main items which have been approved in the Government's programme of home development.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY.

SHELL FISHERIES.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 5.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is considering the installation of shellfish cleansing tanks on the model of that used at the Conway research station in order
to increase employment in coastal areas suitable for the development of mussel fisheries?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, Sir; but it is desirable that any tanks so erected shall be maintained and managed by a responsible local authority, and this has been found to involve certain technical difficulties which I am discussing with my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Health and Agriculture and Fisheries.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman invite the coastal authorities to make proposals to him so that he may consider this matter?

Mr. THOMAS: indicated assent.

SCOTTISH HARBOURS (DEBT REMISSION).

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury under what principle the Treasury has proceeded in fixing the amount of the proposed remission of debts due to public funds by Scottish fishery harbours as set out in Command Paper 3447; and whether account has been taken of the fact that the financial embarrassment of these harbours is the direct result of the War, which necessitated the steam drifters, the chief source of the harbour revenues, being commandeered for the assistance of the Navy?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): In recommending the amounts of the proposed remission of debts due to the Development Fund by Scottish fishery harbours, the Development Commissioners proceeded, I understand, on the principle of giving such relief as in their opinion would enable local authorities to meet their remaining liabilities. The effect of the War, as well as of other causes of the financial embarrassment of harbours, was thus taken into account as a reason for granting remissions.

Major WOOD: How is it that some of them have got no remission at all, although they have suffered very seriously in revenue as a direct result of the War?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the hon. and gallant Member reads my answer, I think he will understand the principle upon which the Commissioners proceeded. As far as the Treasury are concerned, we are limited to a certain amount.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the hon. Gentleman say why no remissions have been made of debt due to the Public Works Loans Board, as that debt amounts to by far the largest item owing by Scottish harbours; and is he aware that the proposals of the Government go no distance towards solving the financial difficulties of the Scottish harbours?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the hon. Member puts down that question, I will see whether it is possible to give him an answer on the point?

Commander WILLIAMS: Will a proportionate amount be given to English fishing harbours?

CHARTS (REPRODUCTION).

Major WOOD: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has now inquired into the difficulties alleged to have been placed by the Government in the way of the publication of certain charts specially designed for fishermen; and, if so, whether he can state the result of his inquiries?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have had occasion to look into the question of the reproduction of charts. The present practice is to charge a small royalty for the preservation of Crown copyright. Beyond this I know of no difficulties which have arisen and I am not prepared to modify existing arrangements.

RELIEF FUND.

Major WOOD: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state the intentions of the Government with regard to the fishermen's relief fund?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The Government have given very careful consideration to the suggestion that they should provide from State funds a contribution towards the replacement of the gear recently lost by a number of Scottish herring fishermen; but have come to the conclusion that any such departure from practice and precedent would involve them in making a similar contribution towards other industries which from time to time suffer heavy losses of the implements of production. Any further assistance than that which I have already intimated would require to be given through other channels and in other directions.

Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman refresh his memory as to the statements which were made by his colleagues last year with regard to the assistance which was given to the miners?

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Has the right hon. Gentleman any other proposals in view? Is he in touch with any other Department, and does he propose to do anything to help the fishermen at this time?

Mr. ADAMSON: In regard to the supplementary questions following the question to which I have already given an answer, the circumstances are not on analogous lines at all. The assistance given to the miners was not given to replace implements of production, but to relieve the general distress existing among the mining industry. With regard to the second supplementary question, I have already said that any further assistance would require to he given through other channels and in other directions.

Major WOOD: rose—

Mr. BOOTHBY: Arising out of the answer—[Interruption].

Mr. SPEAKER: If hon. Members would not make quite so much noise, I should be heard when I call them. Mr. Boothby.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that a great deal of the general distress which exists among the fishermen at the present time has largely arisen out of this disaster, and is he of opinion that the fund is sufficient to meet the urgent requirements of the fishing communities along the South-East coast of Scotland at the present time?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already replied to a similar question and stated that that is a matter for which I have responsibility and that, if it is brought to my notice, there will be a thorough inquiry into it.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of the Government to do anything at all in this case?

Major WOOD: I wish to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment to-morrow.

Mr. J. JONES: In spite of our sympathy with the Scottish fishermen, what about the fishermen of Silvertown?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MOTOR-CAR INDUSTRY (IMPORT DUTIES).

Major COLVILLE: 6.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has received representations from manufacturers of motor-cars in this country as to the effect on employment in that industry of the removal of the McKenna Duties; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the reply which I gave on 3rd December to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald), of which I am, sending him a copy.

Commander WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the Government are still unsettled in their minds on this question?

Mr. THOMAS: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman reads the answer, he will understand it.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to ascertain the total amount of employment in this industry and in all the accessory industries, and, if not, will he assist in helping the Measure which it is proposed to-day to be passed?

Mr. THOMAS: I am discussing with the motor industry every point in connection with that industry with a view to helping them.

Sir H. CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that the figures given by the motor industry do not include all the accessories, and will he take steps to see that that is taken into consideration?

Mr. THOMAS: I am sure that the motor industry will assume that they know as much about their own business as the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Major COLVILLE: May we take it, then, that the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the views expressed by the industry?

Major THOMAS: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what increase has taken place in the number of motor-cars produced in this country since the McKenna Duties were reimposed; and what was the number of persons employed in the motor-car industry in the year 1925 and in the year 1928?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): As the answer to this question includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been an increase in the production of motor cars?

Mr. GRAHAM: Oh, yes; the figures certainly show an increase.

Major THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that nothing is done to interfere with the home market for motor cars?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is not the Lord Privy Seal now saying that all our social reforms depend upon increased production?

Following is the answer:

According to the figures published by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the number of motor cars, including commercial vehicles, built or assembled in the United Kingdom, was 146,600 in 1924, 167,000 in 1925, and about 212,000 in 1928. According to the figures published by the Ministry of Labour, the number of persons aged from 16 to 64 in the "motor vehicle, cycle, and aircraft" industry in the United Kingdom insured against unemployment was 234,830 in July, 1928, and the number aged 16 and over in July, 1925, was 214,840. The number of persons registered as unemployed at the end of June, 1928, was 18,287, and at the end of June, 1925, 12,132.

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (BRITISH STEEL).

Mr. SORENSEN: 21.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has considered the advisability of some assistance being given to enable British steel manufacturers to instal the necessary plant to produce the type of steel required for high buildings to be erected in our Colonies and elsewhere?

Mr. THOMAS: I assume that my hon. Friend refers mainly to the "broad flanged beam" which is a special feature of the buildings in question, and which is not produced in this country. I am advised that there is not yet a sufficient
market to warrant the laying down of a special mill for the production of this type of section.

Mr. SORENSEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if financial facilities were available to assist the production of this kind of steel in this country, markets might be found abroad, and that this would assist employment in this country?

Mr. THOMAS: It is no good providing financial facilities if there is no demand for the goods. Financial assistance is useful where it can be proved that it will facilitate business, but so far as this particular article is concerned, there is no evidence that would warrant a special mill being set up.

Mr. SORENSEN: Does the Lord Privy Seal consider that we are incapable of competing with manufacturers in the United States in the production of this kind of article?

Mr. THOMAS: On the contrary, I think we are capable of competing with anybody, given a fair chance.

Mr. ALBERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say when the White Paper which he has promised us on no lees than four or five occasions will be produced?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer.

Mr. ALBERY: wish most respect-fully to point out that the Lord Privy Seal's answer mentioned financial considerations, and on several occasions he has promised a White Paper with regard to them.

Mr. THOMAS: It is in the Vote Office.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Now?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes.

Sir F. HALL: Put there just this minute?

EXPORT TRADE (CYCLES AND MOTOR CYCLES).

Mr. MANDER: 23.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if the proposals for assisting the export of motor cars now before the Government include cycles and motor cycles as well?

Mr. THOMAS: My discussions with the representatives of the British motor-car manufacturing industry have dealt with motor cars and motor cycles.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far his proposals are now advanced, and whether he is in a, position to make a statement?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly not. Those engaged in the industry are the beat judges as to what is best in their own interests.

Mr. MANDER: My question was whether any discussions have now reached the stage at which the right hon. Gentleman would be able to make a public announcement to the House, which is a totally different thing?

Mr. THOMAS: Not yet.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply the principle of his last answer to the case of the coalowners as well as the motor-car manufacturers?

HON. MEMBERS: And the miners!

Mr. LAWTHER: And the fishermen!

AUSTRALIAN TARIFF (RABBIT TRAPS).

Mr. MANDER: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the effect that the new Australian tariff will have on the trap trade of Wednesfield, causing cancellation of orders and unemployment; and will he make representations to the Australian Government?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am aware that the Australian import duty on rabbit traps has been increased. As I informed the House on Tuesday, 3rd December, the question of making representations to the Commonwealth Government with regard to the recent tariff revision is under consideration.

Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these new duties on steel traps are absolutely prohibitive, and that 75 per cent. of the men in this industry are already out of work; and will he do something to remedy that condition of affairs?

Mr. GRAHAM: From the statistics published in the last issue of the Board of Trade Journal, it is perfectly clear that many of these new duties are pro-
hibitory in character. I can only say to the House that representations are being received, and I am now considering them.

Mr. HASLAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that over a period of several years, owing to -the preferential treatment we have received, our export trade with Australia has increased?

ANGLO-ARGENTINE AGREEMENT.

Mr. SIMON: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give an estimate showing approximately how many men would be given employment directly and indirectly by the carrying out of the convention with the Argentine Government, under which £9,000,000 worth of Argentine Government orders are to be placed in this country within the next two years?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I fear it is not possible to give any such estimate.

Mr. SIMON: Would it be correct to say that this convention is one of the biggest things that has been done for unemployment in this country since the present Government took office?

Mr. GRAHAM: It is by no means unimportant.

Sir H. CROFT: When the right hon. Gentleman comes to collect the statistics, will he also see whether he can give the number of farmers and agricultural labourers employed in this country and in Canada who might possibly be affected?

Mr. GRAHAM: I think the last supplementary question is based on a misapprehension. I have just indicated that it is impossible to give an estimate on the lines of the question put by the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon).

Mr. HANNON: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with reference to the promised concession on the part of the Government of the Argentine of a reduction of the Import Duty on artificial silk goods entering that country from Great Britain, he has any information if a similar reduction of duty will be given by the Argentine Government to other countries under commercial agreements under a most-favoured-nation clause arrangement?

Mr. GRAHAM: I understand that this matter is engaging the attention of the Argentine Government, but I have not yet heard whether they have come to any conclusion.

Mr. HANNON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that, in point of fact, in the commercial agreements which the Argentine Government have with this country there is a most-favoured-nation clause?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is quite true, but we have always explained that it is no part of our policy to ask for preferential treatment for ourselves. I have given in my answer all the information on this point that I have at this stage.

Mr. HANNON: If it is no part of the policy of the Government to ask for preferential treatment for British trade, what does the Convention with the Argentine Government amount to?

Mr. GRAHAM: The answer is that it is of very considerable value to this country.

Mr. HARRIS: Does it not seem a pity to depreciate the concession which the Argentine Government has given to us?

Mr. MATTERS: Was it not precisely to arrange such an agreement as this that the late Government appointed the D'Abernon mission?

Mr. HANNON: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with the overture recently made by the Argentine Government in regard to the reduction of the Import Duty on silk and artificial silk goods imported from the United Kingdom on condition that no restrictions be placed upon the exportation of Argentine wheat and meat to this country, he can state the total quantity of wheat, wheatmeal, flour, and meat, chilled and frozen, imported into this country from the Argentine and from Australia, respectively, and the value of the total exports of silk and artificial silk and the products thereof to the Argentine and to Australia, respectively; and whether any negotiations are in progress or in contemplation with the Commonwealth of Australia before the conclusion of the proposed agreement with the Argentine?

Mr. GRAHAM: The reply takes the form of a table of figures, which I will
circulate with the OFFICIAL BEPORT. AS regards the second part of the question I would refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 27th November, to the hon. Members for Richmond (Sir N. Moore) and Devizes (Mr. Hurd).

Mr. HANNON: Is the President of the Board of Trade prepared to give an undertaking to the House that no con-

THE FOLLOWING TABLE shows the total imports of Wheat, Wheat Meal and Flour, and of Meat, chilled and frozen, into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the year 1928, consigned from the Argentine Republic and from Australia, respectively.


Description.
Imports into Great Britain and Northern Ireland consigned from:


Argentine Republic.
Australia.




Cwts.
Cwts.


Wheat
…
24,399,294
10,233,345


Wheat Meal and flour
…
820,716
980,568


Meat, Chilled and Frozen:—


Beef
…
9,413,063
1,012,252


Veal
…
16,225
152


Mutton and Lamb
…
1,511,468
546,527


Pork
…
57,803
766


Rabbits
…
—
146,722


Other
…
835
—


Total quantity of meat, chilled and frozen
…
10,999,394
1,706,419


Total declared value of above
…
£43,488,534
£11,250,472

THE FOLLOWING TABLE shows the declared value of the exports of Silk, Artificial Silk and Manufactures thereof (except Apparel and Embroidery) and of Stockings and Hose of Silk and Artificial Silk, from Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the year 1928, consigned to the Argentine Republic and to Australia, respectfully.


Description.
Exports, the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom,
consigned to:


Argentine Republic.
Australia.



£
£


Silk and Manufactures thereof (except Apparel and Embroidery).
67,918
380,211


Artificial silk and Manufactures thereof (except Apparel and Embroidery).
131,559
1,530,715


Hosiery: Stockings and Hose of Silk and Artificial Silk.
2,460
66,607

RUSSIAN TIMBER (IMPORTS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a part of Soviet Russian

cession shall be made to any foreign country which will not be equally available for Australia and other Overseas Dominions?

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that, while the Argentine Government reduced their duties on textiles, the Australian Government have within the last few weeks increased them?

Following is the reply:

timber is produced by the large prisoner camps; and what steps he is taking to stop the illegal importation of such products of prison labour into this country?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As the hon. and gallant Member was informed on the 10th July, I have no information as to the conditions under which Russian timber is being produced. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the Government take steps to find out whether this timber is produced by Russian prisoner labour, and also by labour conscripted by press-gangs; and, if so, is it the policy of the Government to tolerate such conditions?

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. Is it in order, in a supplementary question, to make insulting insinuations about Russia?

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it has not been the practice of yourself and your predecessors to rule that hon. Members should make themselves responsible for statements of fact contained in their questions; and may I ask whether the hon. and gallant Member has given these facts to the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. SPEAKER: Undoubtedly it is the case that, when an hon. Member states facts, he must make himself responsible for those facts.

Commander BELLAIRS: I make myself responsible for the question that I have asked. I have asked the Government to make inquiries.

RUSSIA (EXPORT CREDITS).

Sir F. HALL: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount of trade credit given to Russia by this country since the setting up of the Soviet system of Government; and what is the total amount of British exports to Russia and of Russian imports into this country during the same period?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As the answer is long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is it not the fact that there is still a large trade balance, amounting to many millions in favour of the Soviet Government in this country?

Mr. GRAHAM: I would invite the hon. Member to wait until he has seen the detailed terms of this reply.

Sir F. HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement made by Lord Parmoor in another place in which he indicated that every penny had been paid by Russia, which was, he said, different from any other country; and does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a fair way to criticise other counries?

Following is the answer:

As regards the first part of the question, although I am aware that credits have been granted by certain private firms doing business with the Soviet Union, I have no information as to their amount. As to the credits granted under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme, which has been applied to the Soviet Union as from 1st August last, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply by my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade on this subject yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood).

As regards the second part of the question, the United Kingdom trade statistics do not distinguish trade with the Soviet Union, as distinct from the territory of the former Russian Empire, until 1921.

The total figures for the period January 1921, to September 1929, are as follows:

£


Imports from the Soviet Union
149,202,688


Exports of British Domestic produce and manufactures to the Soviet Union
34,177,006


Re-exports consigned to the Soviet Union
42,807,270

SILK AND ARTIFICIAL SILK INDUSTRIES.

Sir H. CROFT: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many artificial silk factories have been built or commenced in the last five years, and how many persons are employed therein?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: According to Press reports some 23 factories for making artificial silk have been established or re-equipped during the last five years. Of these it would appear, however, that only some 13 were actually working in October last. I have no information as to the numbers of persons employed in these particular factories, but the total numbers of persons estimated as employed
in the silk and artificial silk industries in June, 1925, and June, 1929, were 42,750 and 67,573, respectively.

Commander BELLAIRS: Do these figures include extensions of factories as well?

Mr. GRAHAM: Part of the reply refers to the re-equipment of factories, but, on the facts before me this afternoon, I should not like to be precise regarding extensions.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND ACQUISITION.

Sir K. WOOD: 24.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he proposes to ask the House to pass any of the stages of the Bill to further enable local authorities to acquire land for the purposes of unemployment schemes before the Christmas Recess?

Mr. THOMAS: I am afraid that there is no time available before the Christmas Recess for the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

Sir K. WOOD: Would it be possible to circulate the text of this Bill before the Recess, so that we may study it during the holidays?

Mr. THOMAS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will spend a more comfortable Christmas.

Mr. SULLIVAN: If the local authorities fail to acquire land voluntarily will the right hon. Gentleman apply compulsory powers?

Mr. THOMAS: That is the object of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.

Mr. DAY: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any formal Reports have been made to him by the Advisory Committee appointed under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, on the position in the cinematograph industry with reference to blind and block booking; and what action his Department has taken?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: No formal Report on the subject has been made by the Advisory Committee, but at the end of 1928, on their recommendation, a letter was written by the Board of Trade to the
Kinematograph Renters' Society and the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association, drawing the attention of those bodies to the tendency that was stated to exist among some renters and exhibitors to ignore the requirements of Part I of the Act, and inviting their aid in ensuring that all their members were fully aware of the requirements and would co-operate in carrying them into effect.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make Regulations to see that this part of the Act is carried out?

Mr. GRAHAM: We are doing everything in our power under the Act to see that that is done.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to remove the seven years' restriction on claimants through the Mercantile Marine Department for compensation under the war risks compensation scheme; and, if not, will he consider the desirability of doing so?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir. The seven years' limit has now been removed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSUMERS' COUNCIL.

Mr. WISE: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the terms of reference and powers of the proposed consumers' council can yet be communicated to the House?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As I stated in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for the East Willesden Division (Mr. D. G. Somerville) on the 14th November, I must ask hon. Members to await the detailed proposals which I hope later to lay before the House.

Mr. WISE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Food Council is dead, or merely moribund?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir. The Food Council continues.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea as to whether this new consumers' council is to be an extension of the present Food Council, or a new council altogether?

Mr. GRAHAM: It is quite impossible to go beyond the terms of the statement which I made recently to the House, and my hon. Friend, and others, will no doubt be good enough to await legislation.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: When are we likely to see the legislation?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is information which I cannot possibly give this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (HELM ORDERS).

Mr. WEST RUSSELL: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the proposal of the International Conference as regards the alteration of orders to helmsmen at sea; what attitude was adopted by the British delegate at the recent conference on the subject; and whether it is proposed ultimately to lay before Parliament for ratification any specific recommendations for a change in the existing procedure?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Article 41 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, provides that after midnight on the 30th June, 1931, helm or steering orders shall on all the ships of the contracting parties be given in the direct sense. The Convention was unanimous, and no reservation was made by the British or other delegation on this subject. The Convention will not be ratified or come in force until it has been approved by Parliament, and a Bill for the purpose of giving effect to the Convention will be introduced in due course.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only British seaman on the sub-committee on Helm Orders went sick and that our representative's voice was not heard at all on this subject?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the President of the Board of Trade not aware that there is much feeling in seafaring circles against this change?

Mr. GRAHAM: Certainly, representations have reached me, and they have been very carefully considered, but I
would direct the attention of the House to the terms of my reply, which states that this was a unanimous recommendation.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer my question with regard to our representative?

Mr. ALBERY: May I point out that there is a subsequent question down on the Paper with reference to this subject?

Mr. ALBERY: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the international conference which decided on the change in helm orders, whether any British representative was present and took part who possessed professional qualifications of a seafaring nature; and, if so, will he state the nature of those qualifications?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I say that I did not notice this question in the name of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery), and that I am very sorry I intervened on a previous question on this subject?

Mr. GRAHAM: The United Kingdom delegation to the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, included, in addition to Admiral Sir Herbert Richmond, who was President of the Conference, three Master Mariners with extensive sea experience. The delegations from the Dominions included five Captains in the Merchant Service.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a substantial section of the Mercantile Marine is in favour of this change, and will he bear in mind the fact that much of the opposition comes from shore-living officials?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Nothing of the kind!

Mr. GRAHAM: I will certainly have regard to the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the subcommittee which dealt with helm orders had one British seaman on it, who went sick, and that, therefore, our voice was not heard at all?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have already given my hon. and gallant Friend a reply on that point.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No.

Mr. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the long and historic tradition of the sea with respect to this question, and the fact that it may take a generation of new men to understand the new orders that will be given?

Mr. GRAHAM: I can assure my hon. Friend that representations are being made to me on this point, in which all these facts are being included, and they will be very carefully considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-ENEMY DEBTS.

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the balance due represented by the unpaid 5s. 6d. in the £ on accepted proved claims by British nationals against Hungary; and upon what date the Anglo-Hungarian Clearing Office for Enemy Debts proposes to make a further distribution?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The dividends on the admitted claims of British nationals against Hungary have been calculated on the amount of principal and interest up to the 26th July, 1921, the date of the ratification of the Treaty of Trianon. On this basis the unpaid dividend of 5s. 6d. in the £ represents £1,200,597. In addition to this sum there is a further liability which cannot at present be finally calculated in respect of outstanding claims and of interest on unpaid balances subsequent to the 26th July, 1921. A further dividend of 1s. 4d. in the £ will be paid on the 11th January next.

Captain A. HUDSON: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the last date upon which the Hungarian Government made its fixed half-yearly payment under the agreement of October, 1925, in respect of the Anglo-Hungarian claims administered by the clearing office for enemy debts; and is he[...]are that the Anglo-Hungarian clearing[...]has only declared one dividend[...]the period of 18 months which has[...]ce 3rd June, 1928?

Mr. GRAHAM: The last instalment under the agreement referred to was paid by the Hungarian Government on the 30th September, 1929. During the period mentioned in the last part of the question, the Department was unable to pay a further dividend because it was necessary to reserve funds to meet new claims for considerable sums which followed upon a decision of the Anglo-Hungarian Tribunal. A settlement of these claims has now been reached.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon Gentleman say what the reserve fund was?

Mr. GRAHAM: I could not reply to that question without notice.

Mr. WEST RUSSELL: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that Hungary has punctually discharged its agreement of October, 1925, to pay a fixed half-yearly instalment, he can see his way to anticipate the receipt of the remaining instalments by clearing off the balance of 5s. 6d. in the £ on accepted proved claims by British nationals against Hungary, and thereby close down and prevent further administrative and staff expenditure at the Anglo-Hungarian branch of the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts?

Mr. GRAHAM: The Government's responsibilities in this matter are confined to satisfying the claims of Hungary's creditors in this country from funds derived from Hungarian sources, and I regret that I could not agree to add to those responsibilities in the way suggested. I may add that the administrative cost involved in satisfying these claims by instalments as and when money becomes available is negligible compared with the amount outstanding in respect of British claims.

Mr. KELLY: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether all accepted claims on the Anglo-German branch of the Enemy Debts Department have been paid off; and has this branch been disbanded?

Mr. GRAHAM: All admitted claims have been paid, and very considerable reductions have been made in the staff concerned. Further reductions are imminent, but the work must continue until the outstanding claims in the German and other administrations have been disposed of.

Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied with the conducting of this Department; and, if not, will he have an investigation made into the methods adopted in the Department?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have already given various replies to my hon. Friend on similar questions, and I could not possibly add to the reply that I gave to him some days ago on this subject.

Mr. KELLY: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider closing down the Anglo-Hungarian Department of the Enemy Debts Department and entrusting the distribution of the 5s. 6d. in the £ to the Public Trustee?

Mr. GRAHAM: The course suggested by my hon. Friend would not be in the interest of efficiency or economy, and I am unable to accept it.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the dissatisfaction with the conducting of the Enemy Debts Department, would it not be to the advantage of the country that this distribution should be handed over to the Public Trustee, in whom there is some confidence?

Mr. GRAHAM: I want to be quite frank with my hon. Friend, and to say that I greatly regret these vague charges. I have always asked that I should be given any specific case that can be made the subject of a definite charge, when I will immediately have it investigated. I must protest against this constant attack upon public Departments.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: Is it not the fact that the one individual who has made specific charges relating to the work of this particular Department and against particular individuals has been dismissed from the service of the Department without compensation, although the soundness of some of his charges has subsequently-been proved?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir; in a single sentence, the position is not as stated by my hon. Friend.

Mr. KELLY: Is it not a fact that such charges were definitely made and were investigated by the Department?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOAL INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT PROPASALS).

Major THOMAS: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any communication from the Cardiff Chamber of Commerce concerning the Government's proposals regarding the coal industry, stating that those proposals will tend to increase the price of coal; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the consumer against any increase in the price of a commodity which will have the immediate effect of raising prices all round?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have received a resolution from the Cardiff Incorporated Chamber of Commerce relative to the proposals of the Government concerning the coal industry. As regards the second part of the question I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the introduction of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (COTTON TRADE).

Colonel Sir JAMES REYNOLDS: 45
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the total amount received in Excess Profits Duty from the cotton trade;
(2) what is the amount received in Excess Profits Duty from the cotton trade during the last financial year;
(3) what is the amount of Excess Profits Duty to be collected from the cotton trade still outstanding?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. P. Snowden): I regret I am unable to furnish the information asked for by the hon. Member in this and his two subsequent questions relating to the incidence of the Excess Profits Duty on the cotton trade. The statistics of the Excess Profits Duty have not been compiled in such a manner as to show the amounts payable, or paid by particular industries and any such classification would necessitate a difficult and costly inquiry that I cannot see my way to undertake.

Sir J. REYNOLDS: Arising out of the lack of an answer on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him if he h[...] considered the advisability of [...]any balance of Excess Profits [...] may be chargeable against con[...]
are in a very difficult position and unable to raise the money?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: That point does not arise in the original Question as put by the hon. Member, but he is perfectly well aware that a great deal of Excess Profits Duty, originally assessed, has been written off.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (TRADE GIFTS AND COMMISSIONS).

Mr. MANDER: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the possibility of obtaining extra revenue by insisting on Income Tax being paid either by the donor or the recipient on trade gifts and commissions of all kind?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I am not clear as to the precise nature of the transactions which the hon. Member has in mind. If he cares to furnish me with illustrations of any class of case for which, in his view, the existing Income Tax code does not make adequate provision, I will gladly consider his representations.

Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this might be a very effective means of stopping a good deal of the bribery that goes on as well as being a means of raising revenue? I shall be very glad to give him the particulars for which he asks.

Mr. SNOWDEN: If the hon. Member will respond to my invitation and submit to me the details for which I have asked, and if I can discover that there is here a source of revenue, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR LOANS (INTEREST).

Mr. BROCKWAY: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of interest paid on the various War Loans between 1st January, 1915, and 31st October, 1929?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It is not practicable, in view of the conversions which have taken place sit different dates, to distinguish the interest paid on War Loans from the general interest charge on the National Debt. Details of the latter will be found in the annual Finance Accounts, to which I would refer the hon. Member.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Is it possible for office [...]cellor of the Exchequer to state during[...] amounts paid in interest upon elapsed si[...]now?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think that, it is my business or the business of my staff to do simple sums in arithmetic of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (RATES).

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. SIMON.

51. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a serious burden is imposed by the present rating system on those poor families which move out from the slums to better houses; and will he appoint a committee to consider means of removing this hindrance to good housing.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: This question is to be answered by the Minister of Health.

Mr. SIMON: Can I have an answer?

HON. MEMBERS: Where is the Minister?

At end of Questions—

Mr. SIMON: Can I now have an answer to Question 51?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I have been asked to reply. I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend. This and other aspects of the slum problem will receive my right hon. Friend's consideration in connection with the proposals for legislation which he has in preparation, but he does not think it necessary to appoint a committee to consider this particular matter.

Mr. SIMON: Is the hon. Lady aware that the present system of rating falls very hardly upon those who wish to move out of the slums into decent houses and that it is one of the greatest burdens affecting the removal of those slums?

Miss LAWRENCE: These matters are receiving the urgent consideration of my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Sir G. BOWYER: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any conscientious objectors have been promoted, since the Treasury circular of 10th September last, over the
heads of civil servants who served in the Forces during the War; and, if so, how many and in what Departments?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Replies from all the Departments concerned are not yet in. Perhaps the hon. and gallant 11ember would be good enough to put the question down again next week.

WAR OFFICE.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether there has lately been complaint in the War Office of inadequate lavatory accommodation; whether the accommodation has been increased; and, if so, at what cost to the Exchequer?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Shinwell): Yes, Sir; and this has been remedied at an approximate cost of £146.

Sir A. KNOX: Is this increased accommodation solely for the highest ranks at the War Office; and will similar accommodation be provided for other ranks?

Mr. SHINWELL: If the existing accommodation is found to be inadequate for the other ranks, we will remedy it.

Mr. J. JONES: Before the question is finally disposed of, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this accommodation is provided for the use of the Secretary himself?

Sir F. HALL: Is it generally known as "Uncle Tom's Cabin?"

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL ELECTION (COST).

Captain BOURNE: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the cost to the Exchequer in respect of returning officers' fees and charges incurred owing to the last General Election?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The total cost to the Exchequer of the General Election last May was approximately £400,000. These figures include a proportion of the capital expenditure incurred by the Office of Works and the Stationery Office in purchase of election equipment, but they make no allowance for free postal facilities afforded by the General Post Office.

Mr. McSHANE: Will the hon. Gentleman say if it was not worth it?

Mr. SANDERS: Does that sum represent what remains after deduction of the forfeited deposits?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INCOME.

Mr. KINLEY: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his Department has formed any estimate of the total national income (Great Britain) for the financial year 1928–29, and what is that estimate?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: No such estimate has been made.

Mr. BECKETT: In view of the Chancellor's alleged inability to pay his debts, is it not time that his Department looked into this question?

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANY FLOTATIONS (ALIENS).

Sir F. HALL: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider as to introducing legislation to require that persons who are not British subjects and who are concerned with the flotation of companies in this country to which the British public are asked to subscribe shall be required to give substantial financial guarantees as to their bona fides?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As at present advised I am not prepared to introduce legislation for this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION (EMPLOYES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 61.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what is the total number of men employed by the Commissioners at the present time or on the nearest convenient date; how many were so employed on the approximate corresponding date last year; and whether he can estimate the approximate number who will be employed on forestry work this time next year?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The latest return of the number of employés in the Commission's forests is 2,735, the number on the corresponding
date last year being 2,728. There will be no great increase next year, but after that it is estimated that the average number in each year will increase by 350 annually.

Mr. LAWTHER: 62.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if the Commissioners are prepared to consider the question of granting to their workmen a week's holiday on conditions that have been granted to other workmen in Government Departments, having regard to the conditions under which they have to work?

Mr. SMITH: The whole question of conditions of service of the Forestry Commission's workmen is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RHINELAND (EVACUATION).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in the evacuation of the Rhineland by the British Army of the Rhine?

Mr. SHINWELL: It is hoped that the evacuation will be completed by the end of this week, except for 'a small party which is due to leave at the beginning of next week.

PENARTH HEAD (RIGHT OF WAY).

Mr. FREEMAN: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now received the Report concerning the right of way round Penarth Head; and when this privilege can be restored to the town?

Mr. SHINWELL: I have now received a report from which it appears that my hon. Friend has been misinformed. I understand that the Department did not acquire any land on Penarth Head during the War, and that there is not, and never has been, any public right of way round the Battery. Subject to the usual annual closing in order to preserve the Department's rights, the promenade in front of the Battery, together with a footpath giving access to the promenade from St. Augustine's Crescent, is open to the public now just as it was before the War. I am informed that at some earlier date the public were allowed to pass on foot round the Battery, but that this privilege
was withdrawn for military reasons, and the facilities now in existence were granted in consideration of this restriction. But should the Battery at any time become surplus to military requirements, I will arrange that the question of giving the Penarth Urban District Council facilities to purchase the site at a fair price is not overlooked.

Mr. FREEMAN: Is it not a fact that the public used this as a right of way for many years, and will the hon. Gentleman consider granting these facilities to Penarth again?

Mr. SHINWELL: It is not agreed that there is such a public right of way.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I desire to ask for your assistance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which has arisen at the Table. On Friday I handed in a question dealing with the bad service of broadcasting in the East of Scotland. It was turned down by the Table, and, when I asked for guidance as to whom I should address the question, I was informed that there was no Department responsible, and that I could not address the question to the Prime Minister. I should like your guidance as to how the grievances of these people, who by law pay their 10s. a year for a receiving licence, can be ventilated, seeing that they have drawn my attention to the fact that broadcasting in the East of Scotland is so bad that they can get no benefit at all out of this service.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has put a question to me as to why this question was refused at the Table. It is generally understood, I think, or it should be, that one of the rules which governs questions is that questions must be on subjects for which the Minister has some responsibility. Hon. Members can easily realise that to put questions to Ministers on matters in regard to which they have no responsibility would be futile. In this case, I understand that there is no Minister who has responsibility for the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. E. BROWN: Do I understand your ruling to mean that the Postmaster-General in this Government has no responsibility whatever for answering
questions of this kind? Questions were put to the late Postmaster-General affecting broadcasting, and they were frequently answered in this House.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I point out that during the last Debate on the Post Office, the question of broadcasting was raised, and it was replied to at very great length by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon, the late Postmaster-General (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson)?

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Postmaster-General will assist me in regard to his responsibility?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): I understood that the Postmaster-General is responsible for questions of general policy, but I also understood that the Postmaster-General is not responsible for questions of details and particulars as to the service.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: There is a point of policy involved as to the strength of the broadcasting apparatus on the East Coast of Scotland.

Mr. J. JONES: I put a question the other day to the Clerk at the Table, and it was refused. It was a question dealing with perpetual pensions. I was told that I was not in order in putting that question. I would like to know what is the position of private Members of this House on the question of what they can or what they cannot do. I asked for a record of perpetual pensions, and the amount that they cost the State, and I was told that that question was not allowed. I do not know who gave the authority for saying that, and I would like to know what is the authority.

Mr. SPEAKER: A very large number of questions are brought to the Table, and hon. Members must understand that certain Rules must govern the putting of questions.

Mr. JONES: My question was addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Clerks at the Table have an extremely difficult task to perform, and they do it extremely well.

Mr. BROWN: The House will agree with that statement, Mr. Speaker, but
may I put this point to you: Where an issue is raised with respect to a public corporation which has been set up by Statute and which has complete control of policy, and where, as in the case of the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend, there is a question on the border line between detail and policy, ought not that question to go to the Department in order that the Department may be able to judge whether the responsibility lies there?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think that I can charge my recollection to say that, in previous years, as Postmaster-General, I answered questions of this kind as applied to the Post Office, on the ground that these were matters of general policy, but I always refused, as the Postmaster-General has just said, to answer questions on particular details, as being not my responsibility.

Mr. JAMES GARDNER: As it is in order to raise questions regarding the Suez Canal and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, why is it not in order to raise questions about the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Mr. JONES: is not the question of perpetual pensions more a matter of public policy than the British Broadcasting Corporation?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: Can the Leader of the House tell us what business he intends to transact before the Adjournment?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The Government desire that the House should adjourn for the Christmas Recess on the 20th December, that is, on the Friday, and to reassemble on the 21st January. These dates are contingent upon the completion of certain essential business. In the first place, it is necessary to provide before the end of this month £3,500,000 to meet certain charges on the Exchequer arising under the existing Unemployment Insurance Acts. This money will have to be provided by a Supplementary Estimate. It is proposed to take also a Supplementary Estimate of approximately £10,000 to provide for the Highlands and Islands Medical Service. The Government propose also to
take the Second Reading of the Goal Mining Industry Bill before the adjournment. This Bill, will, I hope, be in the hands of Members of the House on Thursday the 12th instant, and the Second Reading will be taken on Tuesday and Friday of next week. Perhaps I might summarise the above statement in the form of a programme:
Monday, 16th December, Unemployment Insurance Bill, completion of further stages. The House will remember that the Bill is down on Thursday for Report, and next Monday for further discussion on Report and the Third Reading. Supplementary Estimates, Ministry of Labour, for approximately £3,500,000, arising out of existing Unemployment Insurance Acts; Department of Health, Scotland, £10,000 Vote arising under the Highlands and Islands Medical Service. That will be followed immediately by Committee of Ways and Means, as usual, covering the Supplementary Estimates up to date.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Is all this for Monday?

The PRIME MINISTER: For Monday. There is nothing very much in it.
Tuesday: Coal Mining Industry Bill, Second Reading, first day; Report of the Supplementary Estimates taken on the 16th, and Ways and Means Resolutions.
Thursday: Coal Mining Industry Bill, completion of Second Reading stage; Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Reading.
Friday: Further stages of Consolidated Fund Bill, and Motion for the Adjournment.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked me yesterday whether it would be possible to provide days for discussion of the Government policy in regard to Egypt and Singapore. I am afraid that it will be impossible to do that before Christmas. I propose that those matters should be discussed during the first two weeks after we reassemble.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this extraordinary programme the Opposition is being absolutely stifled in this House? I have only had the programme for a short time in my hands. As far as I can gather from it, the right hon. Gentleman expects us to take a Supplementary Estimate for £3,500,000 after Eleven
o'clock. I do not quite know what is to happen to the Report stage of the Lord Privy Seal's salary. Perhaps the Government do not want to have another discussion on unemployment, and I do not blame them. The Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill is also down for after Eleven o'clock—one of the classic opportunities for discussing Government policy. Not one hour has been given to the Opposition who have officially demanded time, and rightly demanded time, to discuss Egypt and Singapore. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether His Majesty's Opposition have any rights at all under a Socialist Administration?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether he does not think it would be desirable that we should have another opportunity of discussing unemployment, and not merely the grant of £3,500,000, which is a definite proposition, and its merits or demerits, as the case may be. A White Paper has just been placed in our hands, which indicates the programme of the Lord Privy Seal. Surely, before we separate for December and January, there ought to be an opportunity for a full discussion upon that programme, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will find a day for that purpose. When will the Coal Mines Bill be in the hands of Members? [HON. MEMBERS: "Thursday!"] I know that it will be Thursday, but what time on Thursday Will it be early, so as to enable us to consider it before we separate, and so that we can have consultations among ourselves as to the line we should take?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that we are saddling them with too much. We are trying to get through what, I admit, is a pretty heavy programme, but it is essential that it should be done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Hon. Members know perfectly well that I am not likely at this time of the Session to be too controversial, but a very large part of the work which we found we had to do was left over by our predecessors. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Still, that is all right. I do not complain, but it is part of the explanation of the heavy programme which has to he got through before Christmas. With reference to the Report stage of my right
hon. Friend's Supplementary Estimate, we did not propose to take that before Christmas. We find that it is unnecessary from the Treasury point of view that it should be included in this Consolidated Find Bill, because another Consolidated Fund Bill will be required early in the new year. There are certain remnants—again, not our fault—which will require a Supplementary Estimate which we shall not be able to prepare before Christmas, and, with regard to the scheme for the beet-sugar subsidy, I am informed that that will require a Supplementary Estimate. We did not intend, therefore, to ask the House to take the Report stage of that Vote.
As far as the other business is concerned, the Consolidated Fund Bill is not the main Consolidated Fund Bill; it is only the Consolidated Fund Bill which covers questions which have already been discussed in Committee and Report stage, so that the field of discussion is a very limited one. As far as the Coal Mines Bill is concerned, I do not want to say that it can be had to-morrow, evening, which I am not sure would be possible. I have asked that that should be done if it can be clone, but I am told that it is very doubtful. In any event, it will be circulated with the Papers on Thursday morning.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I have an answer to the question I put to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to providing an opportunity for the discussion of the question of unemployment?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am very sorry. I understood that I had answered it. The opportunity will be on the Report stage of the Vote, and that will not be taken until after Christmas.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then there will be no discussion before Christmas?

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANS: The Prime Minister intends to avoid a further discussion on the general question of unemployment and the measures which the Government are proposing to take until after Christmas. He proposes definitely to deprive the Opposition of the right to discuss the White Paper which is now being put in the Vote Office for the first time to-day, and he is doing that, as I suggest, quite unnecessarily, because he has got the time which
could be used for the purpose if he were to postpone the Coal Mines Bill—[ Interruption]—I do not want to postpone its operation, its action, but it is not in the least necessary that the Coal Mines Bill should have its Second Reading this side of Christmas. If it is ready tomorrow or the next day the right hon. Gentleman can have it printed and circulated, we can consider it and it can come up for Second Reading as soon as we resume after Christmas. If the Government do that, they will not lose a single day for operative action on the Bill when it is finally carried. It is not, therefore, right to suggest that the cat is out of the bag and we are trying to postpone this Bill. That is not at all what we are doing. We are saying that there is only a limited amount of time between now and Christmas, and the Government have got the opportunity either to ask for the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill at very short notice and without the House really having proper time to consider it, or they have the right to say to the House, "Consider now our proposals that we have put into a White Paper for dealing with unemployment."
Which is the more important? Which is the more urgent? I venture to say that the Government are not treating the Opposition rightly. It is not fair to the Opposition. We ought to have some rights in the matter, and every previous Opposition has been accorded rights in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman says that there can be a discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill, but what does he propose to do with the Consolidated Fund Bill? He proposes to bring it in on Tuesday next after 11 o'clock, and he knows well that there cannot be an effective discussion on the Bill. We wish to challenge him on his unemployment policy, and we ask him to put the Privy Seal's salary down so that we may be able to do so.

Mr. J. JONES: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no question before the House.

The PRIME MINISTER: By the leave of the House, might I say it is of the utmost importance that the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill should be taken before Christmas? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] In order that the Bill and its proposals should be con-
sidered by this House at the very earliest possible moment, so that negotiations, if necessary, may be carried on after the expression and consideration of views, and the very best opportunity the Government can have for doing that is while the House of Commons is not sitting. If the Second Reading is postponed until the end of January, or the beginning of February, it will be an exceedingly unfortunate thing from the point of view of getting this Bill satisfactorily discussed by all interests and steps taken during the Committee stage to adjust anything that requires adjustment. The Government would really, with great respect to the Opposition, press for that. There is one thing I want to say. I doubt very much if Members opposite will find that the Second Reading of this Consolidated Fund Bill will give them very much opportunity for discussion. I take that into account in asking that this programme should be accepted. I am taking nothing from the Opposition, but, if they do want an extra day, I am prepared to give it. If they want two days, I am prepared to give them. I do think that, with the very short Recess, it will be perfectly possible for us to resume the business that has been left over, at the end of January, but, as has been said so often by Prime Ministers, I am perfectly willing to leave it for consideration and arrangement through the usual channels.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Prime Minister has made a special appeal in connection with the Coal Mines Bill, and he has put it on the ground that it is very important that opinion in this House should be expressed at the earliest possible moment, in order that considered opinion may be gained, and that the Government may possibly reconsider proposals in the light of any criticism expressed. May I put this? In the first place, this is a Bill of apparently so difficult a character that it is now six months since the President of the Board of Trade announced the general lines of his policy, and it has taken him, six months to prepare the Bill which he is now going to circulate. [ Interruption.] I think the Prime Minister would wish these questions put. It was before the Recess that the President of the Board of Trade announced his intention and the general lines of the question with which
he proposed to deal. It is now six months, or very nearly six months—five months. [An HON. MEMBER: "Make it four!"] Well, I will make it four—it is much nearer five. It has taken the Government that time to prepare this Bill. It, therefore, obviously, is a Bill which any reasonable critic would want considerable time to digest. In the second place, I understand all that period has been occupied in negotiations with one interest or another, or with one body or another, and, therefore, it is surely not unreasonable that further time should be required. Lastly, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that if he wants to get from the House of Commons a considered judgment on this Bill on Second Reading, is it not reasonable that the Opposition on both sides, who do not wish in this matter to be a factious Opposition, but to consider the Bill on its merits, should have the opportunity of considering its details and taking counsel with a large number of people who may be able to advise them and make representations to them?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like again to ask the Prime Minister whether he would not defer to what, after all, is the general sense of at least the majority of Members of this House? My hon. Friends and I raise no objection to the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill, and we are not asking for it not to be taken, although I think there is a very considerable force in what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that the Government have been considering these proposals for six months and are introducing the Bill on the very eve of Christmas, and therefore have no right, in my judgment, to force it through without consideration. But I am back on the question of unemployment. It is very vital that we should have a Debate upon what the Government are doing on the question of unemployment before Christmas. As far as we are concerned, we have no objection to the right hon. Genlteman sitting very late, and I do not think it ought to be said that the Opposition, or any part of it, declines on a matter of that importance to do so. I would not like hon. and right hon. Members opposite to go to the country and say that their interest in the unemployed was so trifling that they were not prepared to take another day before Christmas. Speaking for ourselves we
will sit on any day to consider the question of unemployment. Further, I should have thought that even on the question of mines it would have served the Government better if they had reverted to the old practice of introducing their Bill with an explanation. That was the old method always followed in regard to very important controversial bills, because the House of 'Commons could examine and discuss a Bill without coming to a decision. That is an advantage from the point of view of the Government, as well as from the point of view of the House and the country.
All important Bills since I have been in the House have been introduced in that way. We could then have a discussion, it may be a day's discussion, on the First Reading of the Bill on the question that leave be given to introduce the Bill. That does not force a division. That was the course followed in the case of the Home Rule Bill of 1903, a very controversial Measure. [ Interruption.] I am trying to be helpful. That procedure would give an opportunity to the House to examine the principles of the Bill, to call attention to any defects there may be in it and give the Government and all parties in the House fuller time to consider the matter. Anyone who has introduced a big Bill knows that it also gives the Government the opportunity to make alterations in the Bill before it is finally printed. I have seen that done by both parties, and it is perfectly legitimate. If the Prime Minister cannot give me an answer now, I hope that he will not finally close the door on the suggestion that I am making. It would give us a full day for the discussion of unemployment which everyone desires. If he cannot see his way to accept the suggestion, then I am perfectly certain that there is no party in the House which will refuse to sit at any time he likes to consider the question of unemployment.

Mr. MAXTON: I urge the Prime Minister to resist the demands of the Oppositions in this matter. I have not been in many Parliaments, but I have been in sufficient to say with authority that the Opposition have had greater opportunities for first-class Debates in this Parliament than ever before. They have also been consulted to a much greater extent than ever before. On the
question of unemployment, I only say this, that the Coal Mines Bill deals with what is one of the most obstinate, difficult, and pitiable aspects of unemployment. It deals with an attempt, not merely to develop fantastic schemes, but to put a basic industry properly on its feet. It would be a grievous thing indeed if the first stage of that important Measure were not completed before the House adjourned. If the Prime Minister feels it possible to give an extra day for the general discussion on unemployment by taking a day off the Christmas Recess, he may do so, but I certainly hope he will resist any attempt to press him to give up a day allocated to the Coal Mines Bill or any other discussion whatever.

Mr. J. JONES: Not being a leader of any party but, representing the back benchers, I would like to ask why this House should complacently accept the situation that we are going to have three weeks' holiday. In my constituency, there are thousands of people who are not certain of a decent Christmas dinner. They will be on semi-starvation during the three weeks that we are on holiday, and, when all these questions of time come up for consideration, cannot we consider them? If it is necessary to have a day's discussion on unemployment—[ Interruption]—some hon. Members may wriggle in their seats—I must point out that the people we represent are not so anxious as we are about holidays. Cannot we give them a whole week's discussion? I shall be pleased to 'meet hon. Members opposite and discuss unemployment at any time. They know more about it than I do. Some of them have been out of work all their lives. [ Interruption.]

The PRIME MINISTER: All I can say at the moment, in addition to what I have said, is that I am perfectly willing to leave the matter for consideration through the usual channels, that we have gone into the programme very carefully indeed, and, if the Opposition will allow me to associate myself with it for a second, from their point of view it has been very carefully considered. But we must have an adequate debate upon this Coal Mines Bill before we adjourn. The reason is perfectly obvious. It is that given by the right hon. Member opposite. We should like, after the display of this
Bill to the House and after getting the opinion of the House upon the general question, time for consultation and consideration of details, and that is best done after the Second Reading of a Bill and before the Committee stage. That is what I had in mind. So far as unemployment is concerned, it is absolutely impossible to discuss it and take the Coal Mines Bill unless we have an extra day. I should be glad to arrange an extra day in such a way as to suit the convenience of all parties in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Saturday!"] Yes, it might be on a Saturday. In that event, I could restore to my programme the Report stage of the Lord Privy Seal's Vote, taking care that it is sufficiently wide to cover a discussion on unemployment.

Mr. E. BROWN: May I point out that we are now proposing to adjourn on a Friday, which is only a half day? Do I understand that Friday will be treated as a whole Parliamentary day from 2.45 to 11 o'clock at night?

The PRIME MINISTER: I want the two opposition parties to decide on what they desire, and then I will then announce it on behalf of the Government.

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: May I put the point which I have been putting in private for some time, that we should not spend two days on a discussion of the Coal Mines Bill, but should revert to the earlier practice of this House. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is willing to give us another day for the discussion on the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimate for the Lord Privy Seal's Vote, which would enable us to debate unemployment. The matter does not rest there. There have been from this Box inquiries as to a day for the discussion of Egypt and Singapore, and I do not think the just demands of the Opposition should be ignored in this way. We on this side are perfectly willing to sit on Christmas Eve, but we are not going to be deterred from doing what we think is our duty by threats about Christmas holidays.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings in Committee on the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[ The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 297; Noes, 155.

Division No. 84.]
AYES.
[4.27 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cameron, A. G.
Gossling, A. G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cape, Thomas
Gould, F.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Charleton, H. C.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Chater,. Daniel
Granville, E.


Alpass, J. H.
Church, Major A. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Ammon, Charles George
Cluse, W. S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Angell, Norman
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Arnott, John
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Aske, Sir Robert
Compton, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.


Ayles, Walter
Cove, William G.
Grundy, Thomas W.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Cowan, D. M.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Barnes, Alfred John
Daggar, George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)


Batey, Joseph
Dallas, George
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Dalton, Hugh
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Bellamy, Albert
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Day, Harry
Hardie, George D.


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Harris, Percy A.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Dickson, T.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Benson, G.
Dukes, C.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Duncan, Charles
Haycock, A. W.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Ede, James Chuter
Hayday, Arthur


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Edge, Sir William
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Bowen, J. W.
Edmunds, J. E.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Herriotts, J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Egan, W. H.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Bromfield, William
Elmley, Viscount
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Bromley, J.
England, Colonel A.
Hoffman, P. C.


Brothers, M.
Foot, Isaac
Hollins, A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Freeman, Peter
Hopkin, Daniel


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Horrabin, J. F.


Buchanan, G.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Burgess, F. G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gibbins, Joseph
Isaacs, George


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Gill, T. H.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Gillett, George M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Glassey, A. E.
Johnston, Thomas


Jones, F. Llewellyn-(Flint)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sinkinson, George


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Mort, D. L.
Sitch, Charles H.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Moses, J. J. H.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Muff, G.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Kelly, W. T.
Murnin, Hugh
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Kennedy, Thomas
Naylor, T. E.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Kinley, J.
Oldfield, J. R.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Kirkwood, D.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sorensen, R.


Knight, Holford
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Stephen, Campbell


Lathan, G.
Paling, Wilfrid
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Palmer, E. T.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Strauss, G. R.


Lawrence, Susan
Perry, S. F.
Sullivan, J.


Lawson, John James
Peters. Dr. Sidney John
Sutton, J. E.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lees, J.
Pole, Major D. G.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tillett, Ben


Lindley, Fred W.
Potts, John S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Price, M. P.
Toole, Joseph


Long bottom, A. W.
Pybus, Percy John
Tout, W. J.


Longden, F.
Quibeli. D. J. K.
Townend, A. E.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Lowth, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.
Turner, B.


Lunn, William
Richards, R.
Vaughan, D. J.


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Viant, S. P.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Walker, J.


McElwee, A.
Riley. F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wallhead, Richard C.


McEntee, V. L.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Watkins, F. C.


Mackinder, W.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


McKinlay, A.
Romerll, H. G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


MacLaren, Andrew
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Rothschild, J. de
Wellock, Wilfred


MacNelll-Weir, L.
Rowson, Guy
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


McShane, John James
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
West, F. R.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Westwood, Joseph


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sanders, W. S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Mansfield, W.
Sandham, E.
White, H. G.


March, S.
Sawyer, G. F.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Markham, S. F.
Scott, James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Marley, J.
Scrymgeour, E.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Mathers, George
Scurr, John
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Matters, L. W.
Sexton, James
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Maxton, James
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Melville, Sir James
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Middleton, G.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Millar, J. D.
Shield, George William
Wise, E. F.


Mills, J. E.
Shillaker, J. F.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Milner, J.
Shinwell, E.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Montague, Frederick
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Simmons, C. J.



Morley, Ralph
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Butler, R. A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Carver, Major W. H.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Duckworth, G. A. V.


Aster, Viscountess
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Baillie Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbastan)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Chapman, Sir S.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cockerill, Brig. General Sir George
Faile, Sir Bertram G.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Colman, N. C. D.
Ferguson, Sir John


Berry, Sir George
Colville, Major D. J.
Fielden, E. B.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cranbourne, Viscount
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Boyce, H. L.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainbro)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bracken, B.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th 'i'd'., Hexham)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Grace, John


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)




Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Marjorlbanks, E. C.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Meller, R. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dina, C.)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hammersley, S. S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Smithers, Waldron


Hartington, Marquess of
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Haslam, Henry C.
Muirhead, A. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Penny, Sir George
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hurd, Percy A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D
Purbrick, R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ramsbotham, H.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Remer, John R.
Wells, Sydney R.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Eccfesall)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Womersley, W. J.


Long, Major Eric
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Lymington, Viscount
Salmon, Major I.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart



Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Savery, S. S.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Margesson, Captain H D.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wallace.


Question put, and agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT RETURS.

Brigadier General Sir HENRY CROFT: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require employers in industries benefiting from safeguarding duties to make annual returns as to the number of persons employed.
I move this Motion, not for any party purposes, but simply in order to ascertain facts with a view to arriving at a true judgment as to the employment in the varied industries of the country which we may term "safeguarded," before any change of policy takes place. The House probably realises that up to now there is no power given to the Government to insist upon returns of employment in industries which have the benefit of the security of State action in their struggle against foreign competitors. I submit that if the State intervenes in order to assist an industry or to save it from destruction, the State is entitled to have full details, and this House is entitled to have knowledge, with regard to the employment in those industries.
Clause 1 of the Bill, therefore, requires all employers in industries in Great Britain and Northern Ireland which have the benefit of a Customs Duty or a licence applied to their foreign competitors, or subsidies or bounties applied to their own products, annually to send a [...]urn of the number of persons employed
in the factories which they control to the Board of Trade. Clause 2 requires the above-mentioned employers to render a return of the names of industries which provide them with parts, accessories or materials for the manufacture of safeguarded goods. The reason why this matter is very urgent is that each successive President of the Board of Trade in recent years has had to come to the House and confess that he has not got complete figures and has no power to get them, with the result that hon. Members of this House who are considering this grave problem of unemployment have no full knowledge as to whether this policy has been successful or otherwise.
I will give two or three instances of the incomplete information that we have. In the case of musical instruments we have been told quite frankly by the President of the Board of Trade that in three years the number of persons employed in the manufacture of musical instruments went up from 19,700 to 24,340. That is an increase of 4,640, or 23 per cent. which is satisfactory. That is the official figure. But I happen to know that in one single gramophone industry employment has gone up by four times. As far as I can see, the figures are not in any way complete. For instance, we have no knowledge of the very large number of persons who are employed in making cabinets or
as french polishers outside the industry concerned. Again there are no separate figures for pianos. Yet we know, and the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) knows that the importation of German pianos has decreased from a total of 22,000 before the War to 1,500 last year. The inference, therefore, is that there is a very considerably increased production taking place in this country of pianos which were previously provided from Germany.
Take the case of artificial silk. We had the latest figures to-day. I did not take them down, but we find that in four years, according to the official figures, the production has increased by 50 per cent. That is satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but it is not enough, because it does not give him complete information. Mr. Samuel Courtauld, in a speech at the annual meeting of Messrs. Courtauld, estimated that the total number of persons employed in all the various processes, including mixtures of cotton and some other fibre, at the beginning of 1929 was certainly over 200,000 and probably as high as 300,000. Coming from a very conservative business man I think that that statement is encouraging, even to those hon. Gentlemen who belong to the Liberal party. But these facts are not yet ascertained.
Again, turn to motor tyres. No one knows the figures, and the President of the Board of Trade cannot give them. The Government are going to wipe out these duties, but they have not ascertained the facts. It is estimated that the numerous foreign firms that have come to this country in order to make tyres in Great Britain already employ thousands of persons. Do I exaggerate when I suggest that the persons employed in the manufacture of motor tyres throughout the country, or rather the increased number in the last three years, may be in the neighbourhood of 15,000 persons? But we have not the facts which the House ought to have. A great part of the employment in connection with motor tyres goes to the manufacture of cotton fabric. How many of us know to what extent employment has been given in Lancashire, in the last two years, in the manufacture of the cotton contents of motor tyres? Is the number
2,000, or is it 10,000? I do not know. None of us can have the information. I am inclined to guess that the total is. nearer the higher figure.
Then in the manufacture of road motor vehicles we know that the number of employed persons, apart from motor cycles and tyres and all accessories, since the Duties were imposed, has increased from before the first year of the McKenna Duties until to-day there are something like 170,000 persons employed. That is a very satisfactory increase. We have no knowledge of the number of persons who are engaged in making up the accessories, the body work and the wind-screens, which are given to contractors outside the industries. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really anxious to know what would be the true number of these persons so employed.
I have given a few instances—I could give many more if time permitted—to show how utterly inadequate the returns of these industries are. It has been estimated by a responsible person in the last year that, since all the duties, and the licences on the sugar subsidy, were imposed by the action of the State, some 400,000 additional persons are employed direct, and the Lord Privy Seal has told us recently that for every person for whom you find employment, you will find employment for another in addition, so I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that we may be considering 800,000 persons. When we were told at Question time today that the additional number of employed persons since the end of the War is something like 800,000 to 1,000,000—it was 800,000 in the last five years—is it not a coincidence that this figure so nearly corresponds with the estimate I have just given. It is suggested that these duties may possibly be swept away. Government supporters are just as much concerned, I believe, in their hearts as hon. Members on these benches with regard to this terrible problem of rising unemployment. I am convinced that they will agree that we should have information of the success of this policy. That was the demand of the Balfour Commission. They recommended that these facts should be ascertained and the Liberal party, who tell us they are the champions of truth, will also, I believe, be ready to support this demand because, however keenly they may feel on the subject, they w[...]
not wish to act unless they had the whole of the facts before them. For these reasons I ask leave to introduce the Bill.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft, Sir Basil Pete, Major Long, Mr. Hurd, Captain Bourne, Mr. Boyce, Mr. Hannon, and Sir George Hamilton.

EMPLOYMENT RETURNS BILL,

"to require employers in industries benefiting from safeguarding duties to make annual returns as to the number of persons employed," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

BILLS REPORTED.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (KNEBWORTH WATER) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL AND ROSS WATER) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Reginald Young; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Cape.

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had dis-
charged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Workmen's Compensation (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Atkinson; and had appointed in substitution: Lord Eustace Percy.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1929).

Estimate presented, of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1930 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2 BILL).

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 9th December].

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 12.—(Further amendment of s. 14 (2) of 17 & 18 Geo. 5, c. 30).

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 10, line 35, to leave out the word "thirty-six," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty."
Some hon. Friends and myself have an Amendment down to leave out Subsection (1), but I think we shall raise the issue we have in mind more conveniently by this Amendment, which provides that the extension of the transitional period shall be for six months instead of 12. This is by way of raising the whole question of the transitional period and the provisions made under the Bill to meet the transitional period which, of course, are of the very greatest importance. In the first place, let us be quite clear how temporary these provisions are. The transitional period was a device of the Blanesburgh Committee to soften the transition from the system that previously existed to the system which the Blanesburgh Committee recommended, under which a considerable number of persons would undoubtedly have been disqualified from benefit, and a transition period was allowed during which these people were carried on the fund whether they had, in fact, satisfied the statutory conditions or not. The hopes of the Blanesburgh Committee were falsified. The improvement in employment to which they had looked forward did not materialise. That was not the conclusion of one party or another, but of the Committee as a whole. I do not think any party in the House can escape from the condemnation, if condemnation it be, that they did not foresee accurately the development of industrial depression.

Mr. WALLHEAD: We told you it was going to last.

Major ELLIOT: The right hon. Lady told us it was going to disappear, so
that all parties are responsible for the conclusions the Committee came to. From my point of view, speaking as a private individual, I had great difficulty in seeing this lifting of the clouds of which we were so confidently assured. The position was ominous and as long as relations exist in industry such as they are just now, I do not see any immediate prospect of a lifting of the clouds which hang over the country, whatever we do in the way of rationalisation or improvement of the means of production or anything else.

Mr. WALL HEAD: That was not your Government's point of view in 1927.

Major ELLIOT: The Government did its best to act on the report of an all party Committee. It is true they were mistaken in the action they took upon that report, but I cannot imagine anything else they could do than to have the report and do their best to act upon it. The Samuel Commission is another Commission whose report we thought was very much mistaken, and hon. Members above and below the Gangway have never ceased to inveigh against us for not putting into force more of the results of their examination of the situation. But for good or ill, the transitional period was brought in and a step was taken towards an entirely new development in unemployment insurance, but only a very small step. People who could not be carried statutorily on that fund were carried by straining and extending the Statute, but they were still carried on the fund and they were still insured persons. This provision for the transitory period, it seems to me, takes a further step. It is true they are still nominally carried upon the fund, but the fund is merely a channel through which a 100 per cent. Exchequer grant passes direct from the general tax resources of the country to beneficiaries under this new Clause 12. Arrangements are made in considerable detail in this Clause by which the full and accurate determination of the full liability to the fund caused by carrying those persons is to be ascertained, and the whole of that money is to be carried by an Exchequer grant.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) when discussing this matter on Second Reading, drew attention to this as one of the germs
of progress that are contained in the Bill as a step—I think we must all agree that it merits very careful consideration —which any of us would find it difficult to criticise and almost impossible directly to divide against. It is practically impossible, as things stand, to increase the contributions from employer and employed and, therefore, the uninsurable risk which has accumulated in the funds must be dealt with in some fashion or another. The State has taken the step of buying up the uninsurable risk on the fund—a very interesting suggestion—but our criticism of the action of the Minister is that, having taken that step, and having determined to spend this considerable sum of money, she is not taking what we think are the inevitable consequences of that step and is not realising that what we are upon now is no longer insurance in any sense of the word whatsoever, but is really an unemployment relief scheme, Part 2, Part 1 being an insurance scheme, and Part 2 being the carrying of the unemployed persons without any pretence whatever that a contribution is being made on their behalf. That is to say that they are themselves insured persons. That, it seems to us, carries very many important consequences and my right hon. Friend, speaking on the Second Reading, pointed out that there were 65,000 people unemployed wholly maintained out of the rates, to which the central Government does not contribute one penny, and you are going to have 120,000 similar people paid wholly from the central Government and not out of the rates. He said:
The only essential thing is to bring those two categories together and to deal with them in a partnership between the State and the local authorities by relieving those people in a more scientific way.… If the State will face up to the problem of the submerged tenth and of how to deal with them in a humane way, then you will find your solution. The whole problem is to combine together the Necessary deterrent and the necessary incentive, the necessary preventive side with the essential restorative side in dealing with that appalling isolated mass in getting it back into industry."— [0FFICIAL REPORT, 25th November; col. 1081, Vol. 232.]
The Minister of Labour, speaking shortly after in the Debate upon the Money Resolution, said:
The Government have already set up a Committee which is at work upon that
larger scheme which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford so eloquently described. I may say quite definitely that there is absolutely nothing in that speech which has not already been in the minds of the Committee.
She added:
If we can bring forward a scientific basis for the relief of distress, the party opposite are already committed to the support of such a scheme."—0FFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1929; col. 1104, Vol. 232.]
5.0 p.m.
The right hon. Lady has mentioned that all those suggestions that were brought forward by my right hon. Friend, the partnership between the local authorities and the Insurance Fund, the combination of the preventive with the restorative side, the dealing with the submerged tenth and the dealing with people who are out of insurance, are already in the mind of her committee and are being considered in her Department. It, therefore, seems to us most desirable that this problem should be reviewed at a shorter interval than the interval which she suggests. It is agreed that it is a temporary proposal that she is bringing forward. The right hon. Lady herself said that they could definitely limit this increased Treasury contribution to 12 months. She wants the 12 months' space because of the committee which is already at work and is apparently about to introduce these further schemes. I think the Committee should certainly, when it is embarking upon this very large and, if I may say so, very novel suggestion—in fact, the first step towards the breaking up of the unemployment insurance system into dealing with the component problems—should examine this closely and review it from time to time. I have already had discussion of one kind and another with hon. and right hon. Members opposite, many of whom have had, of course, practical experience and much greater contact with the problem than I have had, but I have had contact with this problem now for many years in another aspect, the aspect of the residual authority in the local government administration of this country. The administration with which I have been connected more or less ever since 1922 or 1923 is the great relief organisations of the country, and we are dealing here, not with an insurance problem, but with a relief problem, because a grant which comes entirely from the
Treasury and is not contributed to either by employer or employed is no longer an insurance proposition at all, and we shall merely muddle our minds, and fall into wrong methods of attack on the problem, if we conceive it as such.
In all administration in this country we have to remember that the unemployment insurance problem cannot be considered apart from the problem of local government, and more particularly the problem of the relieving authority, because all of us who have to deal with constituencies in which much distress exists know very well that one of the great difficulties of dealing with the unemployed or distressed person is the fact that from time to time he moves off one scheme and suddenly appears upon another, and the position of a great local authority, finding the sudden appearance of a number of persons at its doors to whom it has a statutory obligation of maintenance of which it cannot divest itself, is sometimes most acute, because it suddenly finds itself faced with a problem which it has no means of shouldering on to anybody else, and which it is utterly powerless to avert. The ipse dixit of the Minister of Labour may produce an alteration in local finance with which the local authority in question has no means of coping, or in many cases of foreseeing. Obviously, then, there is a case, and a strong case, for the closest possible co-operation between the great local authorities and the central organisation here, namely, the Ministry of Labour.
The great local authorities—I should be wrong if I did more than refer to this in passing—have recently been reorganised. They cover a wider area, they are elected on a franchise which we hope, and which I think will certainly cause more attention than the franchise upon which the relieving bodies, be they boards of guardians or parish councils, were elected beforehand. The unemployed man in Birmingham comes under the review of the municipality of Birmingham, in Sheffield of the Corporation of Sheffield, in Glasgow of the town council of Glasgow, and in the great counties under the review of the county authorities of these new areas. It is wrong to suppose that these great bodies have or will have the same limited outlook which the parochial authorities necessarily bad before. We hope they will be able to take the
initiative in these matters. They are themselves great employers. The Corporation of Glasgow is in some ways the greatest employer of labour within the boundaries of the City of Glasgow, and so are all the great municipalities in their own areas.
Therefore, you have here a new authority lately brought into existence, a new local authority, one of whose specific functions is dealing with relief. You have in this Clause of this Bill a section which definitely moves from the ambit of insurance into the ambit of relief, and therefore, we say, these two things are converging, and now is the time for the Minister, if not in actual Clauses of the Bill, or in the Regulations which she proposes to lay, by speech, to indicate to us what she has in her mind, to indicate to us what the proposals are which her committee has been considering, to indicate to us the method of approach which she foresees as the line of dealing with this problem. Clause 12 is the new departure in the Bill. It is the constructive side of the Bill. I might say that, urgent as these problems were before the re-drafting of Clause 4, they have become infinitely more important since that time. The whole problem is revolutionised by the action of the Ministry with regard to Clause 4, and, as far as one can see from the Debate which went on, an unemployed man carried under Clause 12 has to be carried under the same conditions as any other; that is to say, that it is improbable that he will be struck off benefit unless he has refused an actual offer of employment which has been made to him. A greater and greater number of persons will find themselves carried by this Section of the Act, and not by any other.
Here we have a portion of the Bill which the Minister herself says is a temporary portion, and which she limits to 12 months; here we have a portion of the Bill where there is a possibility of active and fruitful co-operation between national and local governments; and for all these reasons the operations of this Clause should be brought under the active review of Parliament, and we suggest should be reviewed, not in 12 months as the Minister proposes, but in six months after the passage of the Bill. It may be that the Minister will say that that is too short. Well, we are
quite willing to listen to her arguments on those lines, but we say that this new departure demands the closest examination by this House, not merely on account of the insured persons, but on account of the country as a whole, because here for the first time the whole weight of this new relief is being borne, not by the insured persons contributing to the Fund, but by the general taxpayer and by him alone.
The agricultural workers are paying for this, the small shopkeepers are paying for this, all the persons who can never receive relief under this Clause are paying for this. Therefore, it is only right that we should examine and review the conditions under which this relief is being given. A small shopkeeper who falls into indigence and goes for relief will have to suffer a much more stringent examination than anything proposed under this Clause, although he has been paying in the past for this benefit. An unemployed agricultural worker who goes for relief will have to have the examination which the Poor Law authorities conduct, and he will not come under the benefits of this Clause, although in the past through his taxes he has contributed towards the Fund out of which other people have received benefits at his expense. Therefore, for all these reasons, we say that this is a new proposal, an interesting proposal, a proposal which should receive close consideration, but that it is not a proposal that should be parted with for any length of time by this House.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I am very glad that this discussion has been inaugurated in such a thoughtful and, shall I say, non-party spirit, because it is important for the whole Committee to address itself to the seriousness of the problem raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). But I cannot help thinking that his address would have been so much more effective if it had been delivered to the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) during his period of office, in order that it might have been acted upon in the period since 1926.
The reference which was made to the recommendations of the Blanesburgh
Committee seemed to me to be singularly lacking in certain material facts. For example, that Committee recommends that the transitional period should be used for the purpose of some energetic action by the State to stimulate employment. I remember that the suggestion was definitely made that the Government should see whether it would not be advisable to set up committees of employers and workers to examine each industry, and see whether it had expansive powers or whether it was a contracting industry. It also made the suggestion that the contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund should be one-third from the Treasury, an equal third, and if that had been done, we should not have been in the same difficulty as we are to-day. Therefore, I think I am justified in pointing out that if some of the other recommendations of that Report had been acted upon, the situation to-day would not have been as bad as it is.
With regard to the time factor, I should be very glad if I could feel that it was possible to find some alternative form of dealing with the transitional provisions in six months, but I do not believe that that is so. I believe that the whole time is required in order to have the necessary consultations with the bodies that must be brought into relations. As I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, the big Committee is in being and is considering this question in relation to the general question of the social services, and in relation to the right allocation of the burden that must be borne by the community for those who are not in a position to live an independent life as a result of occupation or their own exertions. I think it must be quite obvious to the Committee that this transitional group, the cost of which will fall upon the Exchequer under the Bill by reason of the fact that they have ceased to maintain their 30 contributions, is not a steady factor every week or every month, but is a factor that will reach its peak point and then tail off again.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are the figures available showing the variations?

Miss BONDFIELD: The right hon. Gentleman will find them in the Actuarial Report. It begins with this year's indebtedness to the Fund, and next year is the full year, and then it tails off.
The position with regard to this group is that we have not yet got, because we have not set up the machinery to get it —I am now setting up that machinery—an analysis of the quality of this group. That is one of the fundamental questions before we can go much further, and we are making this minute examination of the quality of those recipients of benefit at the present time who are not within what we call the insurance range. That examination is proceeding. When we have got the examination complete, we shall still have to have a certain amount of time in order to find out how far we are able to say that group A can never again hope to be absorbed in industry.
That is the proposition, and you are dealing with human lives. You cannot deal with it on a statistical basis. You have to deal with individual difficulties and with individual tragedies, and therefore I can see no short cut, I can see no quick road, to the solution of this problem. But I am convinced that we can develop an infinitely more satisfactory system than the one we have at present, if we keep this in mind, that this is not a party question but a question where the whole House wants to bend itself to the solution of one of the most terrible problems that any civilisation has ever had to meet. I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: The Committee are indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) for his constructive speech on a matter of vital importance. When the right hon. Lady says that he ought to have addressed that speech to the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), she overlooks the fact that a speech on those lines was directed to him by others when he sat on the Government Bench. It is not wholly true to say that only those who will not be employed are not entitled to have their benefit still running under this scheme. For instance, take a shipbuilding and marine engineering centre like my seat at Leith. That trade has been worse hit than any other, taken over the period of nine years. There was one period when the coal-mining industry was worse, but, on the average, it has been hit the hardest. There are inside the great group of people in that trade, who may not easily obtain employment again, a
large number of elderly men above 50, some of them approaching 60 years of age. That group of men were included in the first 3,000,000 to be insured in 1912 under the first Insurance Act. The great bulk of them paid their insurance contributions consistently during 1912 and 1913 when trade was good; they never had a day's unemployment during the War period, or in 1919, and did not fall out of employment until 1921, and in some cases, through the actual closing down of yards, until 1921.
That illustration does not apply to the hundreds of thousands of men whom we are now discussing in terms of statistics. I agree with the right hon. Lady that we must think of them in terms of human life as well as in terms of statistics. Take the statistics. You talk about an indebtedness of the Fund of £38,000,000. What is the indebtedness of the Fund on balance at the moment to that great group of insured people who paid up to 1920, and, when the extension came, bringing in £9,000,000 extra to the Fund? They actually, on balance, had nearly £22,000,000 to their credit in the original scheme. That ought not to be overlooked. I make the point now, because in all the discussions on this matter which are bound to take place in successive Parliaments, until the logic of the facts are faced by a Government, it ought never to be overlooked that these men ought not to be pushed off the Insurance Fund, and made paupers while they still have remaining a credit which they built up in their more prosperous days, when the first experiments were made with the limited group of trades. I go further, and say that this is a matter that cannot be dealt with merely in terms of present debt. I am not of those who have ever addressed the Committee on unemployment in optimistic terms. I happen to be the Member who moved the first Amendment to the Bill of the right hon. Member for Tamworth, and the Amendment was that the transitional period should remain and that it should not be varied unless and until the Blanesburgh figure, which I accepted for the purpose of the Amendment, of 1,270,000 on the total live register had been reached.
We are now talking about a debt of £38,000,000. Let us suppose that, in the course of 12 months, or 18 months, or two years, that figure drops, either
through the efforts of the Lord Privy Seal, or a recovery in general trade. What about the debt on the Fund then? The fact is that the moment we get below the million figure, we shall not have to worry about the permanent debt on the Fund, and therefore I protest at the continued assertions in these Debates that this Fund is bankrupt. It is not bankrupt; it is in debt at the moment, but, given any favourable turn in trade, it will be able to stand not only the insured side, but the older men too. Until this House is willing to face the problem of the men and women who will never get employment again, and separate them and make them a national charge outside the Insurance Fund, and apply its mind to producing schemes of work for them, I am going to take no part in any arrangement, to push them off the Insurance Fund. I can see no possibility of ending these transitional periods inside six months or even 12; nevertheless, while the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove ought to be weighed, I hope that they will be weighed in his own party, and by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, and will not be produced every time that we discuss this matter.
The past history of this great experiment should not be forgotten, and the men, many of whom have paid eight and nine years' contributions, should not be treated now as if all you have to do with them is to push them off the fund, which they made solvent, and put them on to the local rates. I hope with the right hon. Lady that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends, when they are talking about the Blanesburgh Report, will not forget paragraph 14, which is perhaps the most valuable part. It. sets out that it ought to be a national duty to make a concerted effort to lessen unemployment by constructive schemes of work. If that. paragraph had been acted upon when the Conservative Government were in power two years ago, and if they had not been overborne by what they called the economic view of the thing, we might have had less talk to-day about the necessity for extending the transitional period, or we might have had a far smaller total of unemployed on the live register. Of course, the Amendment is impossible, but the Committee ought to
direct their attention to the constructive ideas in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. HAYDAY: I am surprised that we should be confronted with a manuscript Amendment of such grave importance which has such little justification. It is not as though the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced the Amendment is something that had immediately flashed across the horizon. It is something that has been with us and discussed time without number, and it is now brought in as a lever to try and destroy whatever value there might be in a transitional period. It means that the transitional period on its expiration must fall due for discussion either in the late autumn, or the early spring, because of its operation in April. If the period is reduced, it will be reviewed when the aggravation of unemployment is not quite so much to the fore; it will be midsummer, when the public are less aware of the problem in its aggravated form. We are now at a. period of peace on earth and goodwill towards men. It is at such a time, when prominence is given to the poor, unfortunate, weary-minded unemployed person, that they are enabled to get some measure of notice. In the Blanesburgh Report, the actuary's estimate was based on 6 per cent., and it says that until you get unemployment down to that figure, the stamp qualification cannot operate on strict insurance lines. The right hon. Gentleman who was the Minister of Labour in the last Government said, when introducing his Bill, that it was because of that figure of 6 per cent., which he thought might well be 8 per cent, that he proposed a transitional period until April, 1929.
If one examines the position at the time when the right hon. Gentleman and his party thought it right to have a transitional period, and the position as it is now, when they think it right to shorten the proposed transitional period by half, one sees a slight inconsistency. The figure for November, 1927, when the right hon. Gentleman's Bill was under discussion, stood at 1,181,546, or 9.9 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman fixed his transitional period for only one year in the belief that the figure of 8 per cent. unemployment would be reached by April, 1928. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman made the statement that he expected that
it would get to 8 per cent, but he well knows that, when the period was about to expire, he had to 'Lake into consideration the fact that, not only had the figures not dropped below 9.9 per cent., as they were in 1927, but that they had actually increased. In October, 1928, just before the review, the figure had increased to 1,356,037 on the live register, or from 9.9 per cent. of unemployment in November, 1927, when the Bill was under discussion, to 11.8. These figures showed that the whole basis upon which it was assumed that the 30 stamps qualification could operate was completely upset, and that was because the Government of the day refused to do that which they are now asking should be done in six months, and which they refused to do during two years. The figure to-day is somewhere about 1,280,000. That is higher than in 1927 when the Bill was introduced. It is because we have a figure greater than that of 1927 that it is necessary again to renew the transitional period.
Therefore, we come to this plain, indisputable fact. You knew in 1927 that you could not make an Insurance Act on the basis of an unemployment figure of 9.9 per cent. You cannot operate it until you have got the percentage of unemployment down to at least 8 per cent. Therefore, we have two years of what I may call a transitional charge upon a fund which, according to the actuaries and the Blanesburgh Report, cannot bear the cost if the figure of unemployment is higher than 8 per cent.; and the borrowing which has been resorted to has had the effect of putting the fund in debt. There is now no choice about carrying over the transitional period for six or twelve months. We cannot avoid doing so. The House and the country dare not let it lapse in April of next year, because of the suffering which would be entailed and of the sudden load which would be thrown on the Poor Law authorities. The outcry would be too great.
Seeing that we have to make the necessary provision, the question arises of whether we are to do it by a direct grant from the Treasury or are to allow the debt of the fund to go on increasing during the 12 months. Already that debt stands at £38,000,000. Are the Government of the: day to have to come to the House every three or four months for permission to increase their borrow-
ing powers, or will the House now say "No, the insured person has carried the load for two years. The fund should no longer be burdened in this way." So far the fund has carried the State's burden, but the Government of the day now say the State must carry its own burden, and it is better that there should be a direct charge. The fund would not be in debt if the State had fulfilled even its one-third of responsibility throughout the period that the Unemployment Acts have been in operation. Is it not equally true to say that if they had released the £80,000,000 under the old Out-of-Work Donation scheme, which they got rid of, the fund would certainly not be £38,000,000 in debt but, in spite of all its adversities, would have a surplus of many millions. Then, perhaps, it would have been possible either to increase the scale of benefit or reduce the contributions.
Seeing the fund has carried the burden of the State for so long, who shall cavil because the State is asked to carry its own burden now that we have come to the straining point? Who shall complain, also, if the period is 12 months? It may have to be renewed for another 12 months. Who wants to have, twice a year, the agonising experience of trailing the misfortunes of the unemployed in debate on the Floor of the House? Once a year is quite enough to review the misery and poverty of this class of the community. I would support a proposal that the State should carry the financial burden of those who cannot supply a stamped qualification entitlement to benefit until such time as the figure of unemployment falls to the point of 8 per cent. They should carry the burden at all percentages of unemployment over and above 8 per cent. I am pleased to find that the Minister is resisting this Amendment, and I hope the Opposition will not press it, or in any way try to justify it now that they have called attention to their point; and 1 hope further that the Government, whoever they may be, will give some attention to the easement of the situation in another direction in place of our having to deal with the difficulties of the poor by transition periods.

Mr. TINKER: I am opposing this Amendment, but I want to thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved
it for the opportunity of discussion which it has given. I realise the meaning behind the Amendment, because anyone who has sat on a court of referees sees what are termed the derelicts of industry. First of all, there are the aged, who, it is very evident, will never get employment again save in exceptional periods. Then there are the men who have been injured in industry and the ex-soldiers who are suffering as the result of their war injuries. I cannot see that these men will ever get any work again, save in an exceptional period of employment. The question then arises, what is going to happen to these people; and I take it that that is the point the Amendment is raising. We say that, for some time at any rate, these people must have protection through the Unemployment Fund, but I cannot agree with the suggestion that there might be a possibility of driving them back on to the local authorities. [Interruption.] I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman argued that with the bigger areas which have been created under the Rating and Valuation Bill the new local authorities could better bear these burdens.

Major ELLIOT: I should like to explain what was meant. That point has come up more than once. It is a little difficult to express it, because whenever one mentions local authorities the inference is that we wish to throw this burden right back upon the local authorities. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) and I have more than once pointed out that it is more or less a question of administration and working with the local authorities. I think the great burden of the expense will have to come from the State, but that the new bodies which have come into existence are bodies which can consider this question without its acquiring the stigma of narrow, parochial relief; they have an ambit scarcely less dignified than that of the State.

Mr. TINKER: I am very glad of that explanation, because later on, when things come to be reviewed, I shall probably call the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to what he has just said. That is our whole idea, that the State should hear the burden of these derelicts of industry. Probably we shall come to a certain agreement later on, but it is our
belief that we cannot bring about an alteration in six months—that is an impossible position. We say you have no right to force the Amendment at this juncture, because it will take at least 12 months before there can be any examination of the question at all. Though I think there will be common understanding on the idea put forward, it can only come later on. It cannot be done now; probably it will take more than 12 months. On those grounds and on those grounds alone, am I opposing this Amendment, although I agree with the idea behind it.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment, because the situation at the present moment is rather a hopeless one. Our discussions have shown the hopelessness of trying to combine two different schemes, a scheme for contributory unemployment insurance and a scheme for relief. I hope the Minister may be able to give us some idea that she is really going to tackle this problem—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that if the Minister did she could not be allowed to proceed. At the moment we are dealing with a particular Clause on the Committee stage of the Bill.

Captain HUDSON: The object of this Amendment is to limit the transitional period by six months in order that, during that six months, we may try to see if a new scheme can be brought in. Boards of guardians, who are soon to be superseded, time after time send resolutions to Members of this House saying how utterly impossible it is becoming for them to give relief to the able-bodied unemployed; and then there is the question of the position of those who are contributors to this scheme. Those are people who are in regular employment and find their contributions used for a purpose which was never intended. I, and other hon. Members on this side of the House, hoped this Amendment would bring from the Minister some statement as to when she would be able to do away for ever with the transitional period and get on with some scheme of relief dividing unemployment insurance into the two parts into which it should be divided, one, relief for the able-bodied poor—

The CHAIRMAN: I have already told the hon. and gallant Member that he cannot pursue that subject on this Amendment.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: With all deference, may I submit that this point is directly material? We have moved this Amendment in order that the matter should be brought up again quickly for review. We do not want to lay too much stress on our ulterior motive for its being brought quickly under review again, but it is that the whole business should be put on a lasting and sound basis. That is the reason; and I think that is directly pertinent to the consideration of an Amendment to limit the transitional period.

The CHAIRMAN: I have not ruled against discussing a limitation of the transitional period, but against a widening of the discussion.

Captain HUDSON: I will leave that point and will merely say that I hope the period of six months will be accepted by the right hon. Lady because she has a hope of being able to bring forward some other scheme in the interval.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the remarks of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) in dealing with the shipping and other trades. The trade I represent, the iron and steel trade, has suffered as much as any other. I think the percentage of unemployment in it to-day is something like 27 per cent, though, according to the statistics reported to our executive while sitting in London last week, the trade has improved during the last six months.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member cannot bring those observations round to this discussion on the transitional stage.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Oh, yes, I am going to bring my observations round to the Amendment. Reports that I have received from my own constituency of people who had been refused benefit as a result of "not genuinely seeking work" are being reduced, but those who have been disqualified as a result of the 30 stamps disqualification are getting more numerous every week, because the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is really beginning to operate. I hope, therefore, that the transitional period will be continued, because there 'are people in my society who have been idle for eight and nine years. They have not
worked since the slump of 1920—the autumn of 1920 or the spring of 1921. I hope the Minister of Labour will not accept this Amendment, because these people are going to be seriously affected. This disqualification is nightmare to unemployed men in the steel trade. I have letters in my locker showing that this is a vital matter, and had it not been for the blunder made by the ex-Minister of Labour on this question we should not have been discussing this matter here to-day.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think it is a little regrettable that the Minister of Labour, after congratulating those on this side of the Committee upon dealing with this question in a non-party spirit, should herself have proceeded to deal with it in an entirely party manner. There is not the least intention, under this Amendment, of preventing those who at present are receiving benefit under the transitional provisions from continuing to do so. We want to be able to keep every point, under review, and we wish to continue the transitional provisions. It would be easy later on to pass a Bill dealing with this matter without taking up much of the time of the House or of the Committee. I know that the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) said that we do not want to bring the agonising position of the unemployed before the House, but really what is wanted is to provide that this House, from time to time, should be able to review the treatment which this problem is receiving in order to see which remedy is the best one to apply.
There is no intention in proposing to reduce the period from 36 to 30 months to have a review of this question at a time when the House is not likely to be sympathetic. If hon. Members will refer to the dates, they will see that a period of 30 months has been taken. This would give an opportunity during the summer session to review the position. That is why we considered that, if there was to be an early review, we should have the period sufficiently extended to allow the question to be reviewed at any time during the Session. If I desired to be controversial, I could point to the fact that we have the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for saying that the number of unemployed under a Labour
Government ought to be greatly reduced within 12 months, and that the return to power of a Labour Government would create an entirely different situation. That is the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it seems to be one in which hon. Members opposite have very little confidence. That is the true reason why we ask for an earlier time limit.
Under the Act of 1927 it was intended to give the proposals contained in the Blanesburgh Report a fair trial. What was the reason why we could not apply them at once without modification? It was because we needed time to give them a trial. I had in mind what I am urging now, that is, to continue the transitional periods for a definite time, after which it would be possible to go into the whole unemployment scheme with the possibility of placing it upon another basis. I am arguing strictly in favour of an extension of transitional provisions. Last winter, as soon as I had a little time to spare away from the work of the office which I formerly held, I remember carefully drawing up a memorandum which I had no opportunity of carrying into effect. This memorandum provided that we ought to consider dividing the insurance system into two parts. I came to that provisional conclusion after going into the matter myself. That is an urgent matter at the present time, and we want to ensure that it will be done very soon. We object to the extension for a year of the existing system, and we are taking steps to reduce that period because we believe that it will produce a worse state of chaos than exists at the present time. We think that a period of 12 months is too long, and we fear that the way in which the existing scheme has been treated under this Bill is likely to make confusion worse confounded. We are trying to put all the pressure we can on the Government to substitute a more workable scheme.

Mr. GOULD: It is certainly clear in the minds of the Members of the Committee that this Amendment reflects a desire to separate those who come under the transitional period from the other unemployed who have a right in contract. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) and the right
hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) say that the partnership which they desire is one with the public assistance committees. I wish to state very definitely that the unemployed who come under the transitional period are wholly connected with industrial districts which are suffering the greatest distress, and any partnership which the six months' treatment would bring at that period would be a partnership with the rate-aided burden which is oppressing those districts. Any alliance which segregates and separates those long-standing unemployed men and women in the distressed areas from the mass of unemployed will at least create a psychological problem that I believe will be resisted by all parties in the State, and especially by the rate-payers.
The worst result of a review under this six months' Amendment would be to put those men and women in a separate camp, and it would create an opinion in their minds that they have been segregated and driven to accept Poor Law assistance. That would create an unemployment problem of a very grave nature. I hope the Committee will resist this Amendment. We want to create new machinery for dealing with this problem, and if you can by the efforts of the public assistance committees and the employing authorities such as the district councils and the county councils you should draw up some plan to get the men back into normal channels rather than make a new psychology of Poor Lawism with the unfortunate long-standing unemployment cases.

Viscountess ASTOR: I think the Minister of Labour ought to be grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) for bringing forward this Amendment. The right hon. Lady made a request that this question should be treated in a non-party spirit, but the present Government have always made a party question of unemployment, and they carried out that policy all the time that the last Government were in office when they tried to deal with this problem. The Minister of Labour and her colleagues have had plenty of time to think about this question, and it is very disappointing to find that the Government have done so little in the direction of dealing with this problem. 1 would like to ask why hon. Members
opposite do not criticise the Labour Government on this question in the same way as they criticised the last Government?

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the Noble Lady to confine her criticism to the Amendment which we are now considering.

Viscountess ASTOR: We are not disappointed with the Minister of Labour because I am very sorry for her, but we are disappointed with the Government. I think we have every reason to be disappointed with the whole attitude of the Government on this question of unemployment. I think the country will also be disappointed, because many people really believe that the Labour Government would come into office with fresh ideas—

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady's speech would be all very well in the Debate on the Second Reading, but we are now dealing in Committee with the transitional period provided in this Clause, and the Amendment under consideration is one to reduce the period by six months. That is the only question which can be discussed.

Viscountess ASTOR: The reply which has been given by the Minister of Labour has been very disappointing, and she has given us no hope. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) spoke about dealing with this problem in the summer time. May I remind him that the present Government have been in office all the summer, and instead of thinking over this question and dealing with it, they have been all over the country—

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady must really try to follow the discussion, and come to the Amendment which is now before the Committee.

Viscountess ASTOR: On this side of the Committee we have constantly been told that we are not interested in the unemployed and that we do not represent the working classes. The hon. Member for West Nottingham was allowed to deal with that point.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for West Nottingham was arguing upon the point whether the period should be six or 12 months, and whether the post-
ponement or modification of the Clause should take place at a certain time. That is the only point under discussion.

6.0 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am referring to it. The point was that we were not trying to cut them out; the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) explained that. The whole point of this Amendment is misrepresented, and, when hon. Members make these accusations against us, we are bound to reply in the spirit in which they are made. I think that it would be far better, and more calculated to satisfy the country outside, if the right hon. Lady made sonic constructive reply, and gave us some hope that she was going to consider this matter in a non-party spirit. We all know that the question of unemployment can never be settled by any one party—

The CHAIRMAN: Really, the whole Bill deals with unemployment, but the Committee is now dealing with the details of the Bill, and I must ask the Noble Lady to try to bring herself down to the detail that is under discussion.

Viscountess ASTOR: I have listened to every word of the discussion, and have heard hon. Members opposite trying to misrepresent the purpose of this Amendment—

The CHAIRMAN: Will the Noble Lady try to obey my Ruling?

Viscountess ASTOR: Certainly.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is it not the custom and practice of the House that an hon. Member who has been called to order at least three times should be automatically asked to sit down?

The CHAIRMAN: I hope to be saved that necessity.

Viscountess ASTOR: I do not mind receiving a rebuke from you, Mr. Young, but a rebuke from hon. Members who have been taken feet foremost out of the House is really too much.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is clearly some doubt in the minds of a good many hon. Members as to the reasons why we have moved this Amendment. The object of moving it is to make it clear that we
think that another Bill ought to be introduced dealing with the transitional period, and with these transitional categories of unemployed people, before the House rises next August, and before there is a long Recess almost till Christmas of next year. We consider that there will be ample time for the Government to receive the Report of the Committee which they have set up, and for the Department to make the necessary inquiries with a view to carrying out what we want to see carried out, and what clearly, from the speech of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), he hoped never would be carried out. The hon. Member for West Nottingham argued in favour of carrying on from year to year the transitional proposals, of carrying them on on the Unemployment Fund with the machinery of the Employment Exchanges, of carrying on this element of the unemployed who, in fact, have fallen out of insurance. We say that the effect of this Clause dealing with the transitional period is for the first time to take out of and away from the Insurance Fund the chronically unemployed who are no longer insurable, and to carry them as a 100 per cent. charge on the State. That is the one constructive thing, and we believe—

Mr. BATEY: We are doing what you did.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not care twopence about the past. Any politician who worries about, the past is not constructive. What we want to do is to look forward to the future in dealing with the unemployed, and not to get involved in the past. That will not help the unemployed. Let us look forward to the future, and see how we can get out of this state of affairs and do something that is really helpful. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) keeps on repeating the old tag, but that will not do a single thing. We want to get a Bill, and to get it quickly, that will separate these unfortunate people from the fund. They are, I admit, very largely confined, as was pointed out by an hon. Member who spoke earlier, to the necessitous areas, the over-rated areas, which are carrying large numbers of unemployed on already over-burdened rates. We want to take those people,
as well as the categories dealt with in Clause 12, and produce a constructive scheme for them quite apart from unemployment insurance. Then there will be some hope of dealing with the chronically unemployed, and the sooner that matter is dealt with the better. We are afraid of what was foreshadowed by the hon. Member for West Nottingham, namely, that something will happen whereby this category of people, who have been unemployed, as I showed the other day, in some cases for three and even four years, are going to fall hack into the fund, and be treated with the other vast mass of unemployed people. We want them taken out and dealt with in a separate Bill, and the object of this Amendment is to make it necessary for whatever Government is in office to produce that necessary Bill before the House rises in August. next year.

Mr. DIXEY: A very pertinent and important point has been put to the Minister of Labour. Surely, there are Members in this Committee who are torn by the differences of opinion that seem to manifest themselves on the Government side, and I think it would be very advisable if the Minister would give us mine idea as to where the Government actually stand in regard to this important point. Is it the right hon. Lady's idea at a fairly early date to introduce some legislation for the purpose of drawing a distinct line between the two classes of unemployed in this country 1 Some hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite seem to be in favour of that. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), as I understood him, agreed with the principle underlying this Amendment—he agreed that we should have legislation which would draw a line of demarcation between the two classes of unemployed. [Horn. MEMBERS: "No!"] I understood the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) to take an entirely different view, considering it better to keep one class of unemployed. An hon. Member who spoke subsequently also agreed. What I want to know, and what I think we are entitled to know, is what the Government are going to do on this point. [Interruption.] Any words that I address to the right hon. Lady, for whom I have the greatest possible respect, will certainly be courteous, but I think we are entitled, on art important Amend-
ment like this, to some reply as to the intentions of the Government. It would clarify the position.

Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member, apparently, was not here when the Minister spoke. She has dealt with that particular point.

Mr. DIXEY: I am not putting this as an absolute demand, but there are some in the Committee who are very much torn. Some agree with the principle of this Amendment, while, on the other hand, some do not want to do anything to embarrass the Government in dealing

with unemployment. [Interruption.] I am as keen on seeing that the regulations benefit the unemployed as any man on the benches opposite. What I should like to hear from the Minister is some statement as to whether we may hope that the principle underlying this Amendment will be carefully considered by the Government in a very short time, and some definite legislation introduced.

Question put, "That the word 'thirty-six' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 170.

Division No. 85.]
AYES.
[6.11 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Dukes, C.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Duncan, Charles
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ede, James Chuter
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Edge, Sir William
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Edmunds, J. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Alpass, J. H.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Ammon, Charles George
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Angell, Norman
Egan, W. H.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Arnott, John
Eimley, Viscount
Kelly, W. T.


Aske, Sir Robert
England, Colonel A.
Kennedy, Thomas


Attlee, Clement Richard
Foot, Isaac
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Ayles, Walter
Freeman, Peter
Kinley, J.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Kirkwood, D.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Knight, Holford


Barnes, Alfred John
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Batey, Joseph
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lang, Gordon


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Bellamy, Albert
Gill, T. H.
Lathan, G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gillett, George M.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Glassey, A. E.
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gosling, Harry
Lawrence, Susan


Benson, G.
Gossling, A. G.
Lawson, John James


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Gould, F.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Birkett, W. Norman
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Blindell, James
Granville, E.
Lees, J.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Bowen, J. W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lindley, Fred W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Broad, Francis Alfred
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Longbottom, A. W.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Groves, Thomas E.
Longden, F.


Bromfield, William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bromley, J.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lowth, Thomas


Brothers, M.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
McElwee, A.


Buchanan, G.
Hardie, George D.
McEntee, V. L.


Burgess, F. G.
Harris, Percy A.
Mackinder, W.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
McKinlay, A.


Cameron, A. G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Cape, Thomas
Haycock, A. W.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hayday, Arthur
McShane, John James


Charleton, H. C.
Hayes, John Henry
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Chater, Daniel
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Church, Major A. G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mansfield, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
March, S.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Herriotts, J.
Marcus, M.


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Markham, S. F.


Cove, William G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Marley, J.


Cowan, D. M.
Hoffman, P. C.
Mathers, George


Daggar, George
Hollins, A.
Matters, L. W.


Dallas, George
Hopkin, Daniel
Maxton, James


Dalton, Hugh
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Melville, Sir James


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Horrabin, J. F.
Middleton, G.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Millar, J. D.


Day, Harry
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Mills, J. E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Isaacs, George
Milner, J.


Dickson, T.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Montague, Frederick


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Morley, Ralph
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Thurtle, Ernest


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sanders, W. S.
Tillett, Ben


Mort, D. L.
Sandham, E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Moses, J. J. H.
Sawyer, G. F.
Toole, Joseph


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Scott, James
Tout, W. J.


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Scrymgeour, E.
Townend, A. E.


Muff, G.
Scurr, John
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Muggeridge, H. T.
Sexton, James
Turner, B.


Murnin, Hugh
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Vaughan, D. J.


Naylor, T. E.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Viant, S. P.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shield, George William
Walker, J.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wallhead, Richard C.


Oldfield, J. R.
Shillaker, J. F.
Watkins, F. C.


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shinwell, E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Paling, Wilfrid
Simmons, C. J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Palmer, E. T.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Wellock, Wilfred


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Perry, S. F.
Sinkinson, George
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Peters. Dr. Sidney John
Sitch, Charles H.
West, F. R.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Westwood, Joseph


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wheatley. Rt. Hon. J.


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
White, H. G.


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Ponsonby, Arthur
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Potts, John S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Price, M. P.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Sorensen, R.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Raynes, W. R.
Spero, Dr. G. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Richards, R.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Ritson, J.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Wise, E. F.


Romeril, H. G.
Strauss, G. R.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Sullivan, J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Rothschild, J. de
Sutton, J. E.



Rowson, Guy
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. T. Henderson.


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l., W.)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Astor, Viscountess
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurd, Percy A.


Atkinson, C.
Dixey, A. C.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Balniel, Lord
Eden, Captain Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Edmondson, Major A, J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Beaumont, M. W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Everard, W. Lindsay
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Berry, Sir George
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Ferguson, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Bird, Ernest Roy
Fielden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson. Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Long, Major Eric


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lymington, Viscount


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Boyce, H. L.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Bracken, B.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Butler, R. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Meller, R. J.


Carver. Major W. H.
Grace, John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Merrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Muirhead, A. J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Colville, Major D. J.
Hammersley, S. S.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hartington, Marquess of
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cranbourne, Viscount
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Neill, Sir H.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Haslam, Henry C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Penny, Sir George




Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Savery, S. S.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Power, Sir John Cecil
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Purbrick, R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Ramsbotham, H.
Smithers, Waldron
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Reld, David D. (County Down)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Remer, John R
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ross, Major Ronald D.
Stanley, Maj, Hon. O. (W'morland)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Salmon, Major I.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.



Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, Sir F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Tinne, J. A.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Sir Victor Warrender.


Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: I beg to move, in page 11, line 17, to leave out Sub-section (3).
As this Amendment deals with a rather technical point some explanation is necessary. The explanatory Memorandum states that this Sub-section (3) proposes to repeal paragraph (c), Subsection (2) of Section 14 of the Act of 1927. By that paragraph a. claimant who had not paid 30 contributions might satisfy three additional conditions in lieu of the 30 contributions—one of these being that he had had insurable employment to such extent as was reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The omission of this paragraph which the Government propose in this Sub-section (3), was not asked for by the Morris Committee. It was not asked for in the Minority Report signed by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). The paragraph seems not unfairly to comply with the words used by the Attorney-General on Thursday last, when he gave an explanation of his views with regard to what would constitute a fair test. It seems to me that anyone who has not fulfilled the conditions of the 30 contributions and has not even been employed to a reasonable extent for the previous two years, might be ruled out of the insurance scheme. I also submit that these words might well be considered in connection with the fresh Clause 4 which we are promised for the Report stage on Thursday next. Whether or not this Sub-section (3) should be included, depends very much on the words which are to be inserted in place of "not genuinely seeking work." I suggest to the Minister that no ease has been made out for the omission of paragraph (c). It has done very useful work where it is. It has stopped certain people getting
benefit who had not been reasonably insured in the last two years, and I suggest that the right hon. Lady might, pending the Report stage at any rate, leave out Sub-section (3).

Miss BONDFIELD: I am not surprised that there should be some doubt as to why this amendment of the Act of 1927 has been inserted, because it deals with a very technical point. It arises in connection with what is known, on these benches at any rate, as Decision 5061. I think it is necessary that the Committee should realise exactly what that decision has done, in order that they may see that the proposal in Sub-section (3) is, as far as we can find, the only way to remedy the real injustice which has been created. The position is this. Originally there were words, which appeared to be a commonsense set of words which no one would misunderstand and which would be easily applicable, but this is what happened. The conditions "not genuinely seeking work," or "not able to obtain suitable employment," or "not available for work," or "voluntarily leaving without just cause," or "dismissal for misconduct"—these are the requirements which are in point in cases of this kind. It so happens that the. umpire has ruled that whenever an applicant is found to have been refused benefit on any of these grounds, that, in itself, is a prima facie case that he could have had a reasonable period of employment, but had not such employment and it penalises him for two years. If this point is brought up when the case is considered under the transitional condition and it is found that the applicant, at any time during the previous two years, has been disallowed on any of these grounds, that, in itself, is sufficient to cause the court of referees under Decision 5061 to hold that the claimant's claim must be dis-
allowed. That is an impossible position and the words in themselves are not, I hold, essential to the proper adjudication of claims or entitlement to benefit, because we have the four statutory conditions in any case. This paragraph (c) was put in specifically in relation to the transition period and I have described to the Committee how it has been interpreted and the consequent administrative confusion and the consequent injustice have been so great, that I beg the Committee to allow me to have this Sub-section.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I put one or two considerations to the Committee on this point. I have never heard quite so unconvincing a defence as that which the Minister has just given. It amounts to this—that because the Umpire has laid down a certain doctrine in Decision 5061, therefore that doctrine is to be like the law of the Medes and the Persians. It cannot be touched, and on that account a provision which reasonably construed as is good in itself, has to go. There has never been an argument like it put forward in this land before. With all respect to the umpire, he is not a court of justice. [HON. MEMBERS "He is."] Perhaps hon. Members will listen to my argument. Cases are brought before the High Court. They are taken to the Court of Appeal and from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. The House of Lords gives a judgment and the principle involved in that judgment is binding, unless it is changed. But it is possible to change a judgment of the House of Lords by Act of Parliament. Therefore you need not necessarily abolish a test like this on the grounds suggested. The whole vice of Decision 5061 can be quite easily removed by Act of Parliament. What was the vice in that decision? In itself this was a proper and reasonable kind of condition, but this Umpire's decision—equivalent to the House of Lords' judgment in these cases —has been closely wrapped up with the conditions about "genuinely seeking work," and to a less degree with the other conditions as well. The objection to this condition does not lie in the condition itself, but in the interpretation of the condition in combination with the phrase "genuinely seeking work."

Miss BONDFIELD: That is the whole point. The umpire, in interpreting the condition, has held that a person ought not to be regarded as having had a reasonable period of insurable employment, if his claim for benefit has been disallowed on one of these grounds during the last two years. Therefore, if the umpire, who is the highest authority on the matter, has held that he is bound to construe these words in that sense I maintain that an alteration of the law is required.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am familiar with paragraph 45 of the Morris Report which is, I think, the one which the right hon. Lady has been reading.

Miss BONDFIELD: It is a statement of the umpire's decision.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is dealt with in paragraph 45 of the Morris Report. It is quite clear that the umpire has tied himself up with a decision which rules the cases. I venture to point out it is not the question of "a reasonable period of employment" which is at fault. No one really pretends that it is. The fault is, that he has ruled that he will construe it in close combination with the other conditions of genuinely seeking work. The difficulty to which most exception has been taken—the fact of a man being disqualified for not genuinely seeking work—has already been done away with because ex hypothesi under this Bill the genuinely seeking work condition has gone. And any other condition of that kind could very easily go at the same time. I ask the Committee to think of this because no explanation of the point has been given by the Minister at the present time. You can alter an umpire's judgment just as clearly as this House can alter a decision of the House of Lords, namely, by Act of Parliament. That can be done, and I am asking the Government to do it. If the Committee will really bend their minds to it they will see what is clear not only to Members on this side above the Gangway, but to hon. Members below the Gangway, namely, that they can alter the wrong application to which the umpire committed the administration. The Morris Committee did not recommend that paragraph (c) should be abolished. They pointed only to the fact that it had been, so to speak, wrongly
used, or, at any rate, used in a sense that produced a regrettable result by the umpire and by the judgment he gave. The Morris Committee have never suggested this, and what is more, the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) in his Minority Report did not suggest it either. No reason of any sort or kind has been given, and now, after all these conditions have been subjected to review, we are asked to abolish paragraph (c) while as yet the whole situation is pending and open as regards Clauses 4 and 5 of this Bill. It really is absurd for the Minister first of all to put forward a completely mistaken idea of the real gravamen of the criticism of the Morris Report, and, secondly, to leave in this Sub-section when she has taken out Clause 4 and Clause 5 for the time being.

Mr. E. BROWN: I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), having gone so far, did not go a step further. He and the Minister are agreed that this umpire's decision cannot stand, and, indeed, by implication, so was the Morris Committee. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to read the relative passage from that Committee's Report, and will bear in mind that this concerns the transitional provisions:
Transitional condition (c) applies in cases where the claimant has not paid 30 contributions in the two years preceding the date of his claim, and it requires him to prove that he has during the two years immediately preceding the date of the application for benefit been employed in an insurable employment to such an extent as was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to the opportunities for obtaining insurable employment during that period.' In a number of decisions given by the Umpire"—
and this includes 5061—
he has held that a claimant cannot be said to have satisfied this condition if, during the period of two years over which the reasonable period of employment must be shown, he has had a claim for benefit disallowed on any of the grounds 'not genuinely seeking work,' 'not unable to obtain suitable employment,' 'lost his employment by reason of misconduct,' or 'left his employment voluntarily without just cause.'
It was contended before us that the effect of these decisions is that a claimant who has once been disallowed benefit on the grounds set out above is unable to bring
himself within the condition until he has requalified himself by obtaining 30 stamps, or two years have elapsed since the date of the disallowance.
The Committee adds this conclusion:
We do net think that this incident of disproof, the consequences of which are so severe on a claimant, was intended or contemplated by the Legislature.
It is because of that passage that I presume the right hon. Gentleman is at one with us in holding that the umpire's decision cannot stand. The question before us is: How are we to upset the umpire's decision? We can do it only in Parliament. We can do it only by absolute authority. His interpretation holds until this House decides by law to change the law. It is umpire-made law instead of being Judge-made law, and is absolute in its effect on an insured person just as is Judge-made law until the Legislature alters the law by Statute. If the right hon. Gentleman claims that the method which the right hon. Lady has adopted is either clumsy or goes further than it ought to go, surely, before he concluded his speech, he ought to have directed his mind to telling the Committee what particular form of amendment he would make in the law in order that the umpire's decision, so manifestly unfair, should be upset, as, indeed, the Committee agreed that it should be upset. Having examined the method of the Minister, I have come to the conclusion that it is the simplest way out. The Committee must remember that this does not affect the permanent structure of unemployment insurance in this connection. It really affects the men who are in difficulties because of the transitional provisions. It is in the transitional provisions in the Act of 1927 that the umpire's decision has its worst effect on those men who are nearest the exhaustion of their rights under the transitional period and who are suffering most severely by Decision 5061. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that my argument is a fair argument. If he says that the Minister's way is clumsy, he ought to say to the Committee precisely what he would have done, if he were in charge of this Bill, to amend the law at an early date.
I take another point. If we remove this paragraph (c) are we doing anything to invalidate the permanent structure of the Act? Certainly if those words can be construed in these terms by one
of the most able umpires of the Insurance Office, is it not proof that you cannot put into the structure of your Insurance Act any of these subjective tests—that is what they are—without rendering absolutely certain that sooner or later application will be made in some case differing in point of fact from every other case? And the result will be that hardship will not only be felt in the particular case which differs from all other cases which come before the umpire, but it will be felt in thousands of other cases in the same way. I have no alternative to offer the Minister by way of amending the law, but I am sure that the umpire's decision ought to be upset. That was undoubtedly the opinion of those who signed the Majority Report of the Morris Committee, and, indeed, I think, of the whole Committee. Therefore, this Amendment should be defeated by the Committee.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Let me reply at once. I have no wish to prolong this Debate, as we have a lot of ground to traverse before 12 o'clock, and I shall not divide against the Government on this matter. The point is that we all agree that the present umpire's decision should not stand. I have never made any secret of the fact. I am clear, too, that the Morris Committee did not recommend the complete abolition of it. They did not mention it in their summary of recommendations. I can only say to-day that this sort of business is just another stage in the making of the whole of the system as proposed to be amended by this Bill, a thing that cannot last more than a few months.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I want to ask the Minister a question on this Clause. I do not wish to do so from the point of view of obstruction. What exactly is the meaning of Sub-section (2)? I have read, of course, the explanatory memorandum, but how does she pass from that Sub-section to the third part? How and why does that arise? In paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) the right hon. Lady will see that, first of all, the
Treasury undertake to shoulder the amount of the cost up to the date of the beginning of this Act. The transitional provision is extended by reason of the words "or as extended by this Section." That is the second burden of the Treasury. Then we have lines 6 to 13, which also deal with a particular additional sum. I wish she would explain exactly what that is.

Miss BONDFIELD: These words provide for the Exchequer to bear the cost of a small part of the benefit paid under the original transitional period of 12 months. That is quite clear. The Exchequer will bear approximately half the cost of transitional benefits paid after 31st March, 1929, to 18th April, 1930, and, secondly, the whole of the cost of the extension of the transitional period made by the Transitional Provisions Amendment Act after 18th April, 1929; and also the whole of the cost of the extension of the transitional period to be made by Sub-section (1) of Clause 12 of the present Bill from April, 1930, to April, 1931.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is the right hon. Lady sure that there has not been a misprint somewhere? I am thinking of the provision in Sub-section (2) which says:
Sums paid at any time after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, by way of benefit under the said sub-section as originally enacted to persons whose benefit years began in the period between the thirty-first day of March and the nineteenth day of April in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-nine; and.
Clause 16 (7) provides that:
This Act shall, except as otherwise expressly provided, come into operation on the thirteenth day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty.
Surely, the right hon. Lady means that it ought to be on the 31st day of March, 1930, because it is a question of the benefit year running. I will not further take up the time of the Committee, but I would like the Minister to look into the matter and see if there has not been a little slip.

Miss BONDFIELD: It is the overlap. The 31st March, 1929, is the correct date. I will, however, look into the matter.

Clauses 13 (Minor Amendments) and 14 (Application to Scotland), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 15.—(Transitory provisions.)

Major GLYN: I beg to move, in page 12, line 14, to leave out from the word "Act," to the end of the Subsection.
Our object in moving this Amendment is to draw the attention of the Committee to the position in which we are placed on account of the withdrawal of Clause 4. It is obvious that Sub-section (1) of Clause 15 does not make sense, because it refers back to Clause 4, the exact form of which is not yet known. There is a further Amendment by the Minister of Labour on this Clause—in page 12, line 16, to leave out from the word "if" to the word "six," in line 17, and to insert instead thereof the word "section." She will move out those words, I suppose, for the same purpose as on Clause 7, where certain words were taken out temporarily, with the idea of putting them back later. It does make the Committee stage very difficult when an important Clause like this, dealing with the transitory provisions, refers back to Clause 4, the exact terms of which we do not know. If Clause 4 in its new form is going to be satisfactory to ail sections of the House, it will be the most remarkable Clause ever drafted. It may be that it will be satisfactory to hon. Members who sit below the Gangway on the Government side, and to hon. Members who sit below the Gangway on this side. It will be extremely interesting for us to see the form that the Clause takes. In the meantime, I do not think the Government ought to ask the Committee to accept Clause 15 until we have had some more information on the subject.

Miss BONDFIELD: As the hon. and gallant Member has rightly said, I propose to move out certain wards in this Clause, in order to move them back again on the Report stage. The Clause reads quite well without those words, because it remains applicable to the other provisions mentioned in the Clause and it will be applicable to Clause 4 when that is approved by the House on Report. Hon. Members must realise that in dealing with conditions of benefit you have to consider the machinery by
which the change-over is going to be effected. This is a pure machinery Motion, which enables me to spread the change over six weeks. We shall give a slight advantage to those whose disallowances mature or whose claims mature during that six weeks period, and it will enable us instead of penalising people after the 13th March under the old Act to begin to bring the new provisions into operation under the new Act as from an earlier date. It is quite impossible that on a particular day, the 13th March, we should be able to deal with the tremendous numbers of persons who would be ripe for dealing with in connection with the change-over. Therefore, from the standpoint of the smooth working of the machine we have put in this six weeks' period during which the disallowances to be considered will be dealt with under the new Act instead of under the old Act.

Earl WINTERTON: The Committee will be aware that from the point of view of drafting we are in a remarkable position in connection with this Bill. I have been in this House longer than anyone in the Chamber at the present time. I have been a Member of this House for a quarter of a century. I have seen many Governments and many Ministers and many methods of doing business, but I have never seen any Government and I have never seen any Minister conduct business like the present Government and the present Minister of Labour. The right hon. Lady is proposing to move to leave out certain words, which she will put back again later, because neither she nor the Government nor the extraordinary collection of groups which form the Socialist party have yet made up their minds how they are going to deal with the most important portion of the Bill. If this is not an instance of administrative incapacity and chaos, then I have never known a case of that sort.

Major GLYN: If the Minister of Labour can give me some idea of the expense involved, I will withdraw my Amendment, in view of her explanation.

Miss BONDFIELD: I believe that the cost of the operation is estimated at about £500,000.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 12, line 16, leave out from the word "if" to the
word "six," in line 17, and insert instead thereof the word "section."—[Miss Bondfield.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: There is an Amendment standing upon the Order Paper in my name and the name of the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway), providing that regulations and instructions sent to the officials of Employment Exchanges shall be published and made available to insured persons at the Exchanges. Hitherto, most of the regulations issued in regard to Unemployment Insurance have been in private and confidential circulation. Such regulations ought to be made public, so that the unemployed persons may know what conditions govern them. Perhaps the Minister of Labour will give us that assurance.

Miss BONDFIELD: I am trying to avoid any misunderstanding in regard to regulations, whether confidential or otherwise.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 16.—(Interpretation, repeal, application, short title and commencement.)

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "in page 12, line 40, to leave out the word 'Fifth,' and to insert instead thereof the word 'Third.'"

This was a misprint in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Major ELLIOT: Would it be possible when giving a definition under this Clause to give a definition of what Clause 4 will mean? If so, it would be a great convenience.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision of approved courses of instruction for persons under eighteen.)

(1) The Minister, after consultation with the Board of Education, shall, subject to regulations made with the approval of the Treasury, make arrangements with local education authorities for the provision, so far as is practicable, of approved courses
of instruction for inured contributors under the age of eighteen years who claim benefit.

(2) In any case where a person, being an insured contributor who is under the age of eighteen years and has been unemployed for such period as may be prescribed, claims benefit, it shall be the duty of the Minister, if there is an approved course of instruction at which that person can reasonably be required to attend, to cause notice in writing in the prescribed form to be given to him informing bins that such a course is available, and that if he fails without good cause to attend the course he will be disqualified for the receipt of benefit, and if it is shown that such notice as aforesaid was given to any such person and that on any day lie did not duly attend the course of instruction in accordance with the notice, he shall, unless he shows that he had good cause for not so attending, be disqualified for the receipt of benefit in respect of that day.

(3) For the purposes of this section the expression "approved courses of instruction" means courses of instruction approved under paragraph (v) of Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the principal Act. —[Miss Bondfield.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
We had a very considerable Debate on this question at an earlier stage of the Bill, and I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by going over again the statement of the case. I very cordially move this new Clause, and I hope that it will meet with satisfaction from hon. Members who have shown a very real interest in the question.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I thank the Minister for putting this Clause into the Bill. Some of us have watched with considerable anxiety the bringing of young people into insurance. We are very anxious that the young people should not too soon be launched into the world of industry. We desire that as long as possible they should be kept in the world of education. Unfortunately in 1931 children will only be kept at school until the age of 15. I hope that the time will come when we shall keep them there until the age of 16. During the Debates great contrasts have been drawn by hon. Members opposite between the children of the poor and the children of the rich, and special reference has been made to the great advantages in regard to training and education which are open to the children of the rich. The
great advantage which they have is that they have greater provision and care made for them in regard to education, and we consider that the same opportunity should be given to poorer children. This Clause will help in that direction.
We want to feel that when young persons become employed that they are not tree from supervision and care, but that when they pass from industry and become unemployed they will pass, as it were, under the operation of this new Clause, into the world of education, where they will still be looked after. The words of the Clause assure us that the Minister is going to do what we asked her to do, and that is to make arrangements with the local education authorities for the provision, so far as is practicable, of approved courses of instruction. I take it that that means that, in conjunction with the President of the Board of Education, she is going to make great efforts to provide such courses of instruction. That is the only real meaning that the Clause can have, if it is to be any help to the children. It is a great improvement to the Bill and it will give great value to numbers of young people. We do not want, in this Bill, to make the children grow up too soon. We want to preserve the home influence and the school influence so long as we can. Because the new Clause does go a great way in doing that, I thank the Minister for having brought it forward, and I congratulate the Committee on the fact that we have improved the Bill by putting such a Clause into it.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am very pleased that the Minister has seen fit to bring in this new Clause, but I feel it is dependent on too many things. It says:
after consultation with the Board of Education, shall, subject to regulations made with the approval of the Treasury, make arrangements to local authorities for the provision, so far as is practicable, of approved courses of instruction for insured contributors under the age of eighteen years who claim benefit.
7.0 p m
We do not know what the Minister of Education has to say, because during the whole of this Debate we have not been able to get one word out of him. We know perfectly well what the Treasury is going to say, because, if the Treasury is willing to take money from children of
15 years of age, it is perfectly obvious that it is not going to give anything new towards the development of these centres. If the Government are really thinking of the children, why did the Minister leave out the most important recommendation of the Shaftesbury Committee, namely, the training of juveniles? We know how few centres there are—only 31 local education authorities out of 371 have got them. It is not going to be made any easier to start them; on the contrary, owing to the Regulation which the right hon. Lady issued in September, it is going to be much more difficult for local authorities to start them. In fact so much so, that I do not think the Committee realises that in the first report of the National Advisory Council on Juvenile Employment, there is a reservation made in the names of Mr. Conley, Mr. Elvin, Sir Percy Jackson, Mr. Keen, Mr. Ben Turner and Miss J. Varley. I think the Committee would like to know what they said:
We feel with much regret compelled to record our view that the criteria for establishing centres are much too stringent to encourage, indeed to enable, the establishment of centres in many areas in which they are necessary. In particular we believe that the insistence that there should be 35 juvenile claimants on the register before a centre can be established, is likely to make it impossible to establish centres, for it must be borne in mind that a juvenile cannot become a claimant until he or she is at least 16 years and 30 weeks of age. The scheme, however, is intended to provide for juveniles of from 14 to 18 years of age.
We attach special importance to the clause of the report noting that the scheme is regarded in many respects as experimental, and but for that clause, we should not have felt able to accept the report.
The circular sent out by the right hon. Lady is far more reactionary than anything that the late Government sent out. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I wish hon. Members would listen instead of interrupting me. It is very difficult really to carry on an argument, but it is very easy to interrupt—any ass can do that. If you are going to have a centre in an area of five miles, you must have 50 juveniles unemployed, 35 of them have to be drawing the benefit, and, if the average attendance falls below 40, the centre can be closed. If that Order had been in operation, we should never have got juvenile employment centres established. For instance, in Plymouth, where they have been established and are flourishing,
there are five of them, but, if this Order were enforced, they would be closed. This is a most reactionary Order, and it is no wonder that Miss Varley, Mr. Ben Turner and Sir Percy Jackson have put in a protest.
We know that there are certain moments when the children get to work; in the month before Christmas, for instance. It falls off, and again in the summer it falls off. Under this circular, any local authorities who do not want centres—and there are many who obviously do not want them because only 31 out of 371 have started them—are going to be enabled to shut down these centres. When the right hon. Lady's Bill comes into operation, there is going to be a positive shortage of juveniles. She might have said that there was something happening in the country which we deplore, namely, that the children are going into industry at 14 and are being turned out at 16, and that we have always protested against that And think it a crime. I, personally, welcome the raising of the school age and the lowering of the age of insurance, but by the time that this Clause comes into operation there should be no juvenile unemployment, and the dangerous thing is that it will be very difficult, from the educational point of view. Most of the local authorities who are really progressive think that, and they are positively alarmed. We all know the horror of blind-alley employment. I think it is even worse if you take a child whose parents are willing to exploit it, and they may have to do so on account of their own low wages. We have the greatest difficulty in persuading parents to allow the children to go on, although we know that in the end those children will make far more from staying on at school a year or two more. There are some who do not want it, and think of the temptation it is going to be to them to take their children from school as soon as they have sufficient certificates and put them into work and then pull them out and draw the dole.
The right hon. Lady is really thinking too much about insurance and not enough about the children themselves. It is from that point of view that I do not feel satisfied about this Clause. It is better than nothing, but why was it not in the original Bill? That is what I do not
understand. The child ought not to draw benefit unless it attends a centre or continuation class. It should be forced to attend some educational centre. Can the right hon. Lady assure us that she has some pledge from the Minister of Education and something from the Treasury, even if it is going to be a little more expensive? Is she going to say that in those areas, where there are not 50 unemployed children within a radius of five miles, those children are to get some sort of instruction I want to know, because I am certain, if the late Government had brought in this Clause, there would have been such a howl that it would have been heard from here to Timbuctoo It would have been said: "There are those wicked capitalists exploiting the children and not thinking of education." That is what we have had for 4½ years. We know, whatever hon. Members opposite feel about juveniles, they feel that our one object was to exploit them. I think the Government are exploiting them over insurance and that they are not thinking of the future question of raising the school age. I am thinking of it.
Education is one of the most important things this country has to face—advanced education. We know it is no good telling us that this is to get the children to stay on at school. When they get a certain number of certificates, they can go into a job and get out and draw the unemployment benefit without even going to centres, because in some places they will not have centres. I should hate my child going into a blind alley occupation, but I would rather he went into that than sit at home and do nothing—from the point of view of his character. This is not insurance for the purpose of education. It is only going to make it easier for those who do not want their children to be educated if they stay at home. It is all very well people telling you that the whole world is made up of keen educationists. It is nothing of the kind. If it were, we should have a different world. I have no doubt that hon. Members regret the lack of education as much as I do. If we had had an educated democracy, it would have been a more intelligent democracy. From that point of view, I want the right hon. Lady to give us some assurance that she is not going to be dependent on consultations with the Minister of Educa-
tion and with the Treasury. We have heard great rows outside about what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done. We know that he is adamant. As to the Minister of Education, I feel like a certain singer. He reminds me of the lines:
Say something, sweet Belinda,
Thy voice I long to hear.
I have hardly been able to resist singing it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon. Members may shout, but they know perfectly well I am speaking from the point of view of the children. They know that there is a real danger in this Bill, because when the time comes that it is in operation, there will be very little juvenile unemployment, but it is going to stand in the way of advanced education.

Mr. COVE: How?

Viscountess ASTOR: Nobody knows better than the hon. Member. Why was he so keen against lowering the insurance age in 1924? Because he said it would make it much more difficult to raise the school age. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] It is no good shouting at me. Hon. Members know it. I honestly thought that the Government which the right hon. Lady represents was interested in the children, but I do not think so now. I am deeply interested in this matter. I am not scared about the industrialists. I am thinking of the children. Under this new Circular you are going to make it almost impossible for the children who are not in insured trades to get any training at all. That did not happen under the late Government. Any child unemployed could go to a juvenile employment centre, but this new Circular makes it dependent on having 35 out of 50 children drawing benefit. That did not happen under the last Government. That is why Miss Varley and the others registered a complaint. The House should bear that fact in mind. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to say that they are pleased. I am not in the last pleased, and I do not believe that the country will be pleased. I do not think that there is anything constructive about this Clause at all. With my hand on my heart—and thank God I have got a heart as well as a head—I can say that if I thought this was going to make for the welfare of the children I would not mind. I do not
believe that it is. It is only because of pressure from the Committee that the right hon. Lady has brought up this Clause. It shows that the Government are thinking of the fund, not of the children. Hon. Members opposite should think a little ahead. This will not keep the young children out of blind-alley occupations, but it will be a real deter-refit to further educational advance. The Government I think, should have given us something a little stronger. After all, they are a party which is on trial for the first time. They jeered at the failures of Liberals and Tories, and perhaps had some reason to do so, but their failures are nothing to the failure of the Government in this respect. The right hon. Lady should give us something a little more reassuring. If not, she and her party, will live to regret the day.

Captain CAZALET: The extremely sincere, eloquent and well-informed speech of the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) shows that not only her heart but her head has been deeply interested in this particular question, and I feel certain that what she has said will produce a more satisfactory statement than we have yet heard from the Minister of Labour. In introducing this new Clause she gave us the benefit of just one or two sentences, and I assume that she intends at a later stage in the Debate to reply to the points which have been raised. At the same time I may not have judged her action rightly, and perhaps the truth is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, who is now present, is to give us some explanation of this Clause. I sat here during the whole time this matter was being discussed on Clause 1, when we had the privilege of the presence of the President of the Board of Education, but in spite of many appeals we were quite unable to elicit from him one single sentence in regard to the matter. The Minister of Labour recognises that we on these benches are deeply and sincerely interested in this matter. The Clause says:
The Minister, after consultation with the Board of Education, shall, subject to regulations made with the approval of the Treasury.
It is obvious, therefore, that in framing this Clause the right hon. Lady has had consultations with both these other De-
partments, and we have a right to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to tell us what happened at those consultations, and what is the opinion of the Board of Education. He might tell us how the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education proposes that these training centres shall be extended. It is clear that these problems have been discussed and thought out by the various Departments, and all we are asking is that they should give the Committee some information as to what occurred. If the President of the Board of Education on a previous occasion had only vouchsafed a few sentences on this matter, he would have saved hours of discussion in Committee. We quite understand that the representatives of the Treasury are not present as they are fully occupied in dealing with their own back benchers upstairs, but the Parliamentary Secretary is here, and I think he might give us the benefit of his opinion.

Mr. MACKINDER: Who is upstairs?

Captain CAZALET: Well, in another part of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish!"] It is perfectly clear that the truth of what I have said is realised by hon. Members on account of their completely irrelevant interruptions.

Mr. BECKETT: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member does not want to make a deliberate misstatement. May I tell him for his information that there is no meeting going on between the officials of the Treasury and the back benchers on this side at the present moment.

Captain CAZALET: I am glad to hear that at least on one day in this week it has not been necessary for representatives of the Treasury to discuss the future policy of the Government at the dictates of the back benchers of their own party. It has been contended on many occasions that the operation of Clause 1 of this Bill, which brings people between the ages of 15 and 16 into unemployment. Insurance—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I really have allowed more latitude than I ought to have done on this new Clause. It deals with the provision of approved courses of instruction for persons under 18 who claim benefit. It doss not raise the general question of unem-
ployment insurance for young people. That question has already been decided in Clause 1.

Captain CAZALET: The only point I want to make is that as the Unemployment Insurance Fund is going to benefit to such a great extent through the operation of this Clause, we think that the result of a week's thought by the right hon. Lady on this matter is entirely unsatisfactory. The fact that the fund will benefit to this large degree by the contributions of these children is a reason why these further facilities should be given, and we think that more information should be given as to the future intention of the Government on this particular point. May I once again most respectfully suggest that as we have a representative of the Board of Education present, and as this is essentially an educational matter, we should have some information and guidance from him. We do not desire to obstruct business in any way. The President of the Board of Education should offer us a little advice on a matter which is so essentially an educational question. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will do the Committee the honour of giving us the result of the conversations which have been held before we decide on the future of this Clause.

Mr. HARRIS: I confess to a little surprise at the speeches of hon. Members above the Gangway. They have devoted much eloquence in criticising what after all is really a constructive effort. It may have come rather late in the day, it may have required some persuasion, but it does something which hon. Members above the Gangway did not do throughout five years. On the contrary, I have a certain quarrel with them because the existing machinery was allowed to rust. In 1922 there were 17 centres in London offering facilities to out-of-work juveniles up to the age of 18 years. For various reasons those centres were allowed to die, and at the present moment there is not a single centre in London. That is under the benevolent guidance of the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway who has just been returned to this House. I am not going to be ungrateful to the right hon. Lady, because this is really an excellent attempt to embody what was the general feeling of the Committee. I am quite prepared to recognise that she is quite new to these Debates, and to guide
a Bill of this character through Committee is no light task. When dealing with the Amendment, of which this new Clause is the result, she expressed the opinion that she did not see how it could be translated into an Act of Parliament. Still, we have struggled; we have saved it, and I am sure she is grateful. It was a long struggle, but the result has been this excellent new Clause. I would remind the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) that this is mandatory. It puts an obligation for the first time on the Minister to provide these classes. It says:
The Minister, after consultation with the Board of Education shall, subject to regulations made with the approval of the Treasury, make arrangements …of approved courses of instruction for insured contributors under the age of 18 years.
That is a great step forward. Hon. Members above the Gangway in Committee asked that they should be provided for those under 16.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I explain. We did so because we thought the Bill was only dealing with children from 14 to 16 years of age.

Mr. HARRIS: Now it deals with young people up to 18 years of age. We have got what we wanted; we must not grumble. These words are rather exceptional in an Act of Parliament. Where it can be proved that it is practicable to provide these classes it is the obligation of the Minister to see that they are provided. I do not want to underrate the difficulty of carrying out this proposal. There is a difficulty in organising these classes. Very often you have young persons scattered over a large area. That has been one of the difficulties in London, where you have pockets of unemployed, 20 here and 30 there, and as far as I understand the proposal is to organise two classes for London. Imagine what it will mean to ask a small boy at Hammersmith to travel all the way to the charming and delightful neighbourhood which I have the honour to represent. That is the proposal I understand. I am very fortunate I am told that the first centre—perhaps it is to commemorate my effort to convert the right hon. Lady—is to be in Bethnal Green. That would be a most delightful journey for the small boy from Hammersmith, and I am sure it would be profitable to him to get to Bethnal Green; but I suggest that by the
time he has arrived his enthusiasm for education will have waned. The latest suggestion is that his fare will be paid. That will be of considerable assistance.
I suggest, however, that if this scheme is to be a success the Government must not be content with any half measures in sending all the children North of the Thames to Bethnal Green, or all those South of the Thames from Battersea, Greenwich and Woolwich, all the way to Bermondsey or Southwark. What we want above all things is the active cooperation of the Board of Education. Under the last Government the Board Of Education stood aside as a sort of observer, leaving the whole burden to the overworked and over-worried Minister of Labour, whose troubles were quite big enough without his having the business of organising these classes. It may be that the Minister of Labour will have to foot the bill, but the work should be carried on under the supervision of the Board of Education representatives and inspectors. That is most important.
Secondly, there must be elasticity. Where you have a lot of juveniles it would be wise to have sufficient classes in a building specially located for the purpose, but where you have scattered children I see no reason why other facilities should not be utilised. There are the technical schools, the continuation schools, and even some of the central schools, where you could get the co-operation of some of the teachers. That brings me to the most important part of the subject. The whole success of these proposals depends on the securing of the right staff. Schemes have broken down in the past because they were a make-shift arrangement. It may be information to some Members, but under the old arrangement the instructors charged with the duty of training out-of-work juveniles up to the age of 18 were paid by the hour. I believe the rate in London was 5s. 6d. per hour. When three or four boys got a job in a factory and took themselves away from the school, the teacher lost his job.
I do not want to be unkind, for some of the men were splendid, but in many cases you had the dregs of the profession who could not get on the staff of the ordinary schools because they were either too old or unqualified, and they were thrown into these training centres just
to carry on. That could not be a success. You want really the pick of the profession, men who have the social sense, men who desire to sacrifice themselves to this great social work of helping these young people. In other words you want to provide a permanent staff and organisation, men who make it their business and train themselves to handle these young persons.
Even more important than that, you want proper equipment. You do not want these boys coming back to the school in the ordinary sense to learn ordinary arithmetic, something they had broken away from when they entered industry. You want these institutions to be living institutions, with proper craft rooms, proper art rooms, and all the necessary appliances for physical culture, a proper gymnasium, and in the case of girls opportunities of attending at a cookery centre where they can learn to keep their self-respect while out of the labour market. I am grateful, I shall not say for small mercies, because I believe that this is the beginning of better things. I believe that out of this small beginning will come great good, and I congratulate the Minister of Labour on her willingness to listen and learn and help when members try to assist her—willingness which she has put in the tangible form of this excellent Clause.

Earl WINTERTON: No one wishes to deprive hon. Members of the Liberal party of the small triumph that they have had in securing the adoption of a principle which was ably and cogently put forward from the Liberal benches in earlier Debates upon the Bill. Every one who knows the record of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) on this subject of education, knows that he has given very close attention to it and is an authority on it. But I must say that I agree with my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) in thinking that those who occupy the Liberal benches are rather optimistic in their belief that the Clause will do everything that they claim.
There are one or two questions that I wish to ask. I know that it is of no use protesting against the absence of the President of the Board of Education, but I think it is a great pity that on a
question on which there is very little party feeling, and on which Members on all sides are anxious to find a common focal point for their views, the Minister who is as much concerned as the Minister of Labour has not once taken part in the discussion. He was present when the original Clause was brought forward. I do not know whether he thought that this side of the Committee was trying, to use a slang phrase, to "rag" him when he was asked to speak. I can assure him that it was an entirely genuine and sincere appeal. To-day, he has not even come down to the House and has sent his Parliamentary Secretary, who has not as yet taken part in the Debate. I do not protest because it is no use protesting, but I do make an appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to reply to certain questions which, as must be apparent, cannot be dealt with solely by the Minister of Labour. The very words of the Clause show that. The case for the intervention of the President of the Board of Education is much stronger in this new Clause than it was on the original discussion. The first words of the new Clause say:
The Minister, after consultation with the Board of Education, shall, subject to regulations made with the approval of the Treasury, make arrangements with local education authorities for the provision, so far as is practicable, of approved courses of instruction for insured contributors under the age of eighteen years who claim benefit.
The Minister can only do so after consultation with the Board of Education. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green has said that the Clause is mandatory. On a strict interpretation, I do not think it can be called mandatory, because it contains the restraining words, "so far as is practicable."

Mr. LEIF JONES: Can anybody do more than that which is practicable?

Earl WINTERTON: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman has been long enough in this House to know that there constantly occur in Acts of Parliament the words "The Minister shall," without any qualifying condition.

Mr. JONES: If the Noble Lord will read the Clause without the words "so far as is practicable," he will see that the meaning is nothing.

Earl WINTERTON: Our whole contention is that the Clause is a weak Clause so far as instruction is concerned.

Mr. COVE: Will you tell us precisely how you would strengthen it?

Earl WINTERTON: That is the question with which I was about to deal. This phrase, "so far as is practicable," may be necessary, but it is essential that in a matter of this kind we should have from the President of the Board of Education his definition of what he means by "so far as is practicable," or tell us what is in his mind. It is essentially a matter for his Department. It may be that these words have had to be put in, but from the point of view of Parliamentary purity it is no good to say that this is a mandatory Clause, It is not a mandatory Clause. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister has not chosen the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) to be his Minister at the Board of Education, and, as the hon. Member is not the Minister, we cannot have from him an authoritative statement on the interpretation of what is admittedly a very important Sub-section of this Clause. I have the greatest admiration for the hon. Member's Parliamentary character, but he is not the Minister.

Mr. COVE: I have asked you to say what you would put in its place.

Earl WINTERTON: I hope that we shall have from the Parliamentary Secretary the interpretation that he puts on the words "so far as is practicable." Another point has already been referred to. That is the question of the distance of a boy's or girl's home from the centres that he or she can reasonably be required to attend. I presume that those words "can reasonably be required to attend" have reference to the distance of the insured person from the course of instruction. We ought to have some statement on that point. This new Clause has been brought forward as a result of pressure from all parts of the House, and especially from the Liberal benches, but really it is no use for the Minister to dispose of the matter without explanation by saying it is a happy solution of a difficult question. It may or may not be a happy solution, hut we have had neither from her nor from the President of the Board of Education any adequate explanation of all the conditions governing the Sub-section. I would again
appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to give us that explanation which we have been seeking on so many occasions when the matter has been under review.

Miss BONDFIELD: In the original discussions on the general principle of the Clause, it was pointed out that the insertion in the Bill of this provision for the development of juvenile centres arises out of the reports of the juvenile advisory councils. This action which I have taken, and which the noble Lady deprecated so strongly as being utterly inadequate, at least is action definitely taken as soon as that report was in my possession. I gave instructions immediately that the recommendations of the advisory council are to become operative, and a circular went out. It is true that those recommendations do not go the whole way, but they go very much further than anything else that has happened, and to that extent it is a very great advance upon the position prior to October. This advisory council's recommendation is based upon the threefold action of the Ministry of Labour, the Board of Education, and the local education authorities. The primary step had to be taken by us. We are most anxious, and it is clear that the whole Committee agrees, that we should maintain that threefold responsibility. The financial basis—it is a definite part of the plan with regard to setting up centres—is that the local education authority should pay 25 per cent. of the cost, not so much on account of the money as that they should be definitely identified with the education given and feel that it is part of their work, and that it should not be merely Ministry of Labour work or Employment Exchange work but juvenile centre work, and, therefore, we place the greatest importance upon the co-operation of the local education authorities.
I can assure the Committee, and my hon. Friend will reiterate the statement if it id required, that the President of the Board of Education is cordially and enthusiastically in favour of doing everything possible to carry out the scheme. The position hitherto has been that these unfortunate centres have had to live from hand to mouth. I have taken the step of giving them permanence for three years, and we will see how we get along with a greater degree of per-
manence. These centres are only the first step. It is quite obvious that there will be children so few in number that no one could justify setting up a centre with a fully-equipped staff for two or three, or 10 children. The expense would be out of all proportion to the results. In addition, therefore, to setting up centres on this basis, which is described in the report, we propose to take every channel available. If we can get a single child linked up with a class, we shall do it. If we can get three or four children into an institute, we shall do it. We shall use every opportunity and every vacant place which would enable us to bring children into touch with the education authorities. The details of all these things will necessarily have to be worked out in each locality. The Noble Lord asked whether distance was to be a factor. Decidedly, it will be a factor in connection with the matter of whether it is reasonable to ask a child to attend a centre.

Earl WINTERTON: Could the right hon. Lady give any indication of what sort of distance?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, that would be a question to be settled locally. We welcome the feeling that has grown in the House. The Ministry of Labour will go forward knowing that there is a united House behind it in the desire to develop it. I shall use the powers conferred upon me to the fullest possible extent, and I can confidently count upon the cordial co-operation of the Board of Education in that effort. I have been asked where the Treasury comes in. It comes in in this way. It has consented to put up 75 per cent. on the understanding that, in regard to insured persons, the Unemployment Insurance Fund puts up half of that 75 per cent., so that the Treasury has a very direct interest in the whole business.

Viscountess ASTOR: The Treasury has always put up 75 per cent. Under the new circular it is going to put up much more to give uninsured children juvenile unemployment pay.

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady has already spoken.

Major SALMON: I rise because of the observations that fell from the hon. Mem-
ber for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), who complained of the system of education under the guidance of the late Minister of Labour. The London County Council was really the responsible body for seeing that these classes were held and properly staffed, and it comes with a very ill grace from the hon. Member to criticise my right hon. Friend when he himself was a member of that education authority.

Mr. HARRIS: I was one of a minority of five out of 130 and I was powerless.

Major SALMON: It is also within the recollection of the Committee that they had never seen or heard of him having complained to the London County Council that the method of education, or the provision of staff, was not carried out in the way he thought they should be. Therefore, I think it is very bad form on his part to try to take party advantage when, as a matter of fact, the late Minister of Labour was not responsible for the way in which educational matters were carried out. But I think the Minister of Labour is doing the right thing at last by setting up these classes. They are very essential. I am glad to observe that the Ministry is going to find 25 per cent. of the cost. No doubt on the last occasion the contribution of the Treasury was somewhat small, but on this occasion they are going to increase it. The reason they can afford to increase it is that they are receiving money from a very large body of children who will never get any benefit from it, and they can obviously afford to find the money on this occasion, whereas previously children of 15 did not come under the insurance scheme. I also suggest that, when these classes are set up, it will be very desirable if the Minister would, in conjunction with the juvenile committees, have courses of a character that would be of real use to those who are out of employment. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green mentioned domestic training for girls. That would he an excellent idea. It is a thing that ought to lie much more encouraged than it is at present. Generally I am hopeful that these classes will prove successful. It is gratifying to find that the Minister has altered her mind. She first said this could not be done because there were administrative difficulties. It is an ex-
traordinary thing that those administrative difficulties have disappeared since the feeling of the Committee was so strong that the classes should be held. But we must not look a gift horse in the mouth. It is certainly better to have these classes late than never and I hope they will prove a success.

Mr. MANDER: I wish to express gratitude for the action of the Government in accepting the Amendment. At the same time I should like to make one or two comments on it, because I am by no means satisfied that it is all we might have obtained. It is a very great advance and it entirely depends on the way it is handled whether we get all we might out of it. I should feel much happier if these words "in so far as is practicable" were not present, because that means a very wide margin for the Ministry and various officials to say such and such a thing is not practicable. I am sure, if some of the existing regulations of the Ministry of Labour are maintained unaltered and are not made more flexible, there will be a great deal not done that ought to be done. This is not a new problem. After the War, when the troops were being demobilised, we were faced with exactly the same problem of giving instruction and training to those who had had their careers interrupted, but the difficulties were overcome and it was found possible by one means or another to give the training. Where it was not possible to set up centres in towns it was got over either by paying the fares of men to come to the centres or, where that could not be done, in certain cases arrangements were made for instruction to be given in the villages by the local wheelwright, carpenter, shoemaker, or farmer. It ought not to be impossible to face this problem in the same spirit and to overcome the difficulties on the same lines. Although the words are riot absolutely mandatory I hope the Government will feel that the issue is so imporant that they will go as far as they went when the troops were being demobilised.
8.0 p.m.
To show the difficulties that are sometimes raised, I should like to give an account of what happened in the case of the very progressive town which I represent—Wolverhampton—and how they
faced this matter. They had the credit of being the first town in the after-War days to bring forward a juvenile training scheme. That was in 1921, and they were met with the strongest opposition and obstruction from the Ministry of Labour at that time, but they persisted, and although they were told that they would have to pay the whole of the expenses out of the rates, they consented for 12 months, to their eternal credit, to pay 100 per cent. out of the rates, so keen were they on the scheme. When, in 1923, the national scheme came out, it was founded very much on the lines on which it was started in Wolverhampton and on which it has continued ever since. I think the name of Miss Fitchett who has been at the head of this scheme is very well known at the Ministry of Labour, and that the Ministry are fully aware of the excellent pioneer work that has been done by Wolverhampton in this matter.
While the Ministry, with their Regulations, have been very helpful in connection with this centre, I say, quite seriously, that the Regulations want altering, because they are not sufficiently flexible. I know of cases where in one week there have been perhaps 700 attending and in the next week 1,500, and then the number has gone down again, and that has meant that the staff has had to come and go weekly, just as the numbers have seemed to ebb and flow; and I urge that the teaching staff should be put upon a more permanent basis. You cannot deal with it on a day-to-day or a week-to-week programme. You want to set it up so that you will know that for a definite period ahead you will have a staff capable of dealing, with the problem, and I hope the Under-Secretary will consider most carefully whether it is not possible to make the rules very much more flexible than they have been up to the present time.
With regard to the human value of these centres, I would say that in our case many of those youths, who came reluctantly, with no good will towards the scheme, boys who came to scoff, remained to pray. It appealed to them; they realised the advantage which they got, and it had a very valuable effect on their self-respect, so much so indeed that these youths, after the compulsory part of the training was over, kept in association voluntarily, formed a little society of those who had
been through the centre, and indulged in all sorts of cultural activities which would never have taken place at all if it had not been for the control that was kept over them at that very important period by the juvenile training centre that was set up in Wolverhampton. I want to urge the Government most strongly to go as far as they can, to take trouble, to take heroic measures, because they are worth taking in this matter for the sake of the children, to face the administrative difficulties that undoubtedly exist, and to overcome them.

Mr. COVE: I am very glad that the Minister of Labour has not embodied in this new Clause the original suggestion of the Liberal party. It is not the Minister who has been converted; it is the Liberal party that has been converted to the practical necessities of the situation. It has been said that it is only the Liberal party which has any educational concern for the children, but I want to apply a corrective. The original suggestion of the Liberal party was that every child everywhere should be compelled to go to a juvenile unemployment centre— [Interruption.] If the Noble Lady will listen a moment—

Viscountess ASTOR: I really protest.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Viscountess ASTOR: On a point of Order. Every time I look over to the other side, hon. Members say that I should stop interrupting. There is no sense in it.

Mr. COVE: I want to say, briefly, that the original suggestion had the backing of neither the second report of the Advisory Committee nor of the first report of that Committee. As a matter of fact, the Committee, after prolonged consideration, said it was not advisable to put compulsory powers upon local education authorities to provide juvenile unemployment centres up and down the country. Not only is this a wise thing from the point of view of the child, but I say that the child who has paid for his insurance should have the benefit. There has been a very greatly exaggerated idea as to the educational effect of juvenile unemployment centres. I want to give them full credit for what they have done. I have been round to
a number of them, and undoubtedly they have done good in some cases, but the suggestion is that they are training centres, and one would imagine that they could be made training centres for vocations, that they could be set up everywhere as permanent institutions. We have had it suggested from the other side that there should be a permanent staff, with permanent equipment. Just imagine putting up juvenile unemployment centres permanently everywhere, when, as a matter of fact, in those already established in the worst areas the average attendance is only a matter of three weeks! The child is in and out. The Malcolm Committee considered it and said quite distinctly that you could only frame the curriculum in these unemployment centres, not for a week, not for a month, but from day to day. Why? Because the child is in and out, because the child is looking for a job; and I am not going to stop the child looking for a job.
While I realise the benefits of the juvenile unemployment centres, I want to say quite distinctly that they are not the permanent next step in education. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has missed one very important point, and that is that you are putting these centres under the aegis of the Ministry of Labour. I want all educational endeavour to be definitely under the Ministry of Education, and the next permanent step forward is not a juvenile unemployment centre at all. If we are to have a permanent scheme, we shall have not merely to raise the school-leaving age. It has been amusing to hear of the great interest in education of the Conservative party, when they are opposed all the time to the raising of the school age. We invite the spirit which has been displayed to-night in the next step forward, and I regard that as the permanent institution of the Fisher continuation schools. There you will get your permanent structure, there you will get your equipment. I am glad the Minister of Labour has not accepted the original compulsory Clause, and that we have got an instruction to the Ministry to set up these centres "so far as is practicable," realising at the same time that our next great step forward is along the line of compulsory continuation schools.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the hon. Member think that this Bill makes that more easy?

Mr. COVE: Yes, certainly.

Sir BASIL PETO: The Minister of Labour told us that 25 per cent. of the cost of these juvenile unemployment centres would be borne by the local education authorities and that 75 per cent. would be advanced in the first instance by the Treasury, which would recover 37½ per cent., as I understand it, from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has pointed out that she is proud of Plymouth because it has five of these unemployment centres, and she says they are flourishing. Plymouth is a part of the same county of which I represent the north-west corner, and I can understand that you might well get, in a great centre like Plymouth, with a population of a quarter of a million or more, a sufficient number of children who were out of work to justify those five unemployment centres, and therefore Plymouth would benefit; but in the whole of the rest of the area of Devonshire there is probably not a single place, with the possible exception of Exeter, where there might be one, where a juvenile unemployment centre on these lines would be a practical proposition, because the children could not possibly attend it, even if they were there, and they would probably be so scattered and so few in number that I am indeed thankful for the insertion in the Clause of the words which have been criticised by the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), namely, "so far as is practicable." The scheme would be impracticable in Devonshire for the whole of the county excepting Plymouth, and I want to know why the county rate should he charged with the cost of an educational effort which can only benefit Plymouth.
With regard to the 75 per cent., the same objection is applicable, though in a less degree, because whether the money comes out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund or out of the Exchequer, there is only a very small fraction of the people in the county who can possibly benefit, and the taxpayers and the contributors to the Unemployment Insurance Fund in all the rest of the county cannot possibly get any advantage at all. Therefore, I
think the finance of the scheme is very unfair and does not place the burden in the slightest degree on those localities that will benefit. It is only in the great centres of population that this scheme can possibly be carried out at all, and I say that those portions of the population which can benefit by it ought to bear the cost of it. I can understand, as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said, that Wolverhampton was a progressive place and that the ratepayers were prepared to pay 100 per cent. of the cost of the first unemployment centre set up, but if Wolverhampton was able to get children to go there, Wolverhampton ought to pay for it. I do not think it ought to be divided over the whole of the rest of a large agricultural county.
I would ask the Under-Secretary for the Ministry of Education whether this question of the finance of these centres, as the only localities in which they can ex hypothesi exist are the great towns and cities, has been considered at all. When this Clause comes to be put into the Bill, I think the hon. Gentleman will hear something from the local education authorities in counties such as that a part of which I represent, which will point out to him that it is a very unfair proposition indeed, in a county where there is only one city large enough to benefit by the scheme, to charge the cost of it over the whole county through the county rate.

Commander WILLIAMS: Many of us thought, when the Minister of Labour rose to move this Clause, that we should have some explanation from the Minister of Education. I was inclined to look with favour on the Clause until the speech that was made from below the Gangway by one of the great authorities in this House on education, but I must say quite frankly that by the time he had finished his speech I doubted whether this Clause would really carry out what we wished to do, namely, to make as many of these centres as possible. Many of us have appealed for a considerable time to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to give us a definite answer on one or two points. We want to know what organisation he has, in conjunction with the Minister of Labour, to put this Clause into effect. We have had some figures, not necessarily authoritative, as to the number of centres
that there are already. May I ask the hon. Gentleman what preparation he is making to build up new centres? That is a perfectly fair question, which I have no doubt that he can answer—that is, always presuming that he intends to answer, and to take charge of this part of the Bill on behalf of the Government. Under this Clause, there is to be not only the consultation of the two authorities that have been mentioned, but also the approval of the Treasury.
We have heard from the Government Front Bench that 50 per cent. will come from the fund, and 25 per cent. from the Treasury, so that there will be a contribution of 75 per cent. in all towards these schools. What, approximately, does the fund expect to make out of these particular juveniles? The Minister of Labour said yesterday that they would not be one of the very expensive sections of the insured people. What amount is likely to be made out of the juveniles, and will that amount be balanced, roughly, by their contributions to this fund? If we could have answers to these questions, which we have been seeking for well over an hour, we could go on, provided that they are satisfactory, to deal with the matters following. The other day the Chairman ruled that insolence of speech on that occasion was perfectly legitimate; some people can be very polite in speech and others less polite, hut, if there is a form of insolence in the House of Commons which is much worse, it is that of a Minister who comes here and, after having had repeated requests to give a reply, remains silent. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education will be the last to refuse a request which has been expressed by many hon. Members, and that he will not for a moment like to refuse the appeal which has been made to him.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to first statutory condition for receipt of benefit.)

Where during any periods falling within the period of two years mentioned in the first statutory condition for the receipt of benefit an insured contributor has been offered, and has accepted, employment which is not insurable and subsequently becomes
unemployed, the said condition shall have effect as if for the said period of two years there were substituted a period of two years increased by the said periods of non-insurable employment, but so as not to exceed in any case four years.—[Dr. Marion Phillips.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. MARION PHILLIPS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a very small and non-controversial Clause, which endeavours to put right an injustice under which a small number of workers are suffering. The object is that, when an insured person who is unemployed takes suitable employment in a non-insurable trade, the period up to two years during which he is employed in that trade may count as illness would count. Then, if he becomes unemployed up to a period of four years from his last employment, he will start again in insurance at the point where he left off. The injustice is very great on the small number of workers who are affected. I would mention especially two classes—industrial workers who go into agricultural employment, and industrial workers who go into domestic service. They go into a non-insurable trade in order that they shall work rather than live on the benefit, but, if they become unemployed again, they lose everything which they have paid into the fund; and, though they may have been on benefit at the time of taking the non-insurable work, they will not be able to return to it. We propose that they should be able to do that up to a maximum period of two years. It is a very small Amendment, which I hope that the Minister will be able to accept.

Miss WILKINSON: I want to urge the Minister to take this question into consideration. The words, as they appear on the Paper, may not exactly fit the position, but I am sure that words may be found on the Report stage, which will do what we desire. May I point out, as I did on each occasion when an Unemployment Bill was before the last Parliament, that the present provision definitely discourages people from trying to help themselves and to get off the Unemployment Fund. If you have a man, say, in an area like Middlesbrough, a devastated area with terrible unemployment, who gets a bucket and leather and sets up
as a window cleaner, and then after-wards tries to get on to the Unemployment Fund, he is told that he has gone out of insurable employment. The same thing applies to all such attempts to get off the fund. Unless there is something like this proposed Clause inserted in the Bill, people will be penalised for trying to get off the "dole," because, if their little venture is not successful, they are told, however many years they have paid into the fund, that they are not in an insurable occupation and therefore cannot get benefit. The same thing applies to domestic service. I am not one of those who desire to see our industrial women workers, with their skill, put as unskilled workers into domestic service. Those who are willing to find work, however, and pick on this type of work for a short time while a mill is stopped, and later try to get on to the fund, are told that they are in a non-insurable employment. I do not believe that a large number of people will he concerned, or that it will mean a large charge on the Treasury—or any charge at all—I hope the Minister will be able to accept the Clause.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): The new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Dr. Phillips) needs no explanation from me after her speech and that of the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson). I am sure there is scarcely a Member of the House who at one time or another has not come into contact with this very serious difficulty, which, although it does not affect a very large number of people, is yet an acute difficulty. In some parts of Scotland we frequently have difficulties arising over men moving from the mines to agriculture, particularly in the areas where mines have been closed; and in other parts of the country, particularly in the Midlands, we get eases where a mill may be stopped and domestic service is offered to sonic of the workpeople.
I think every one who has held the post in the Ministry of Labour which I have the honour to occupy will agree that there is undoubted evidence of a reluctance on the part of people to take work in various non-insurable industries, not because they are reluctant to do the work but because of the fear of losing their
insurance rights. The solution of this difficulty has received careful consideration on previous occasions, but it has not yet been properly settled. There are certain difficulties in regard to the drafting of this particular Clause. I think it is modelled on a Clause in an earlier Act dealing with periods of sickness, but all the same there are certain administrative factors to be taken into consideration. I am instructed by the Minister to say that the Government will undertake to attempt to redraft this Clause in order to give expression to the principle contained in it, and will bring up the new Clause on Report stage. The hon. Member for Sunderland will then have the satisfaction of having ended a very difficult position which has continued for a long time.

Dr. PHILLIPS: On the undertaking that we have been given, we are perfectly willing to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Dependants' benefit.)

Where an insured contributor having dependants in respect of whom benefit is payable is able to obtain suitable work only at a distance of more than twenty miles from his home and shows to the satisfaction of the Minister in such manner as the latter may by regulations prescribe either that the work is or is likely to be temporary, or that suitable accommodation, regard being had to the means of the contributor, is not available at his place of employment, benefit shall be payable in respect of his dependants as though he were unemployed; provided that such benefit shall not be payable for more than twenty six weeks in any year and provided that this section shall mot apply to an insured contributor who is earning an average weekly wage of more than fifty shillings."—[Sir R. Aske.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir ROBERT ASKE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to deal with cases of unemployed men with dependants who are unable to get work in their own districts and have to go a considerable distance in order to obtain work. May I give a typical case. Suppose there is on the East coast a man who is unable to get any work in the vicinity of his home but learns that work is available on the West coast. He goes to the West coast and obtains a job. Up to the time when he left home he was in receipt of
32s. a week unemployment benefit; that is, on the assumption that he had a wife and small family. As a shipyard labourer his wages will be about 39s. a week nett. Out of that he will now have to pay about 25s. a week for board and lodging, and is left with only 14s. to send home to his wife, with which sum she has to attempt to pay the rent and to feed and clothe the family. Although when in receipt of unemployment benefit the man was able to keep clear of parish relief the result of his going elsewhere for work is that his wife and family have to go on the parish in order to supplement what he has been able to send them out of his wages. One appreciates that this is a difficult question, and I have no doubt that the Minister will say there are various objections to the proposal as it is framed in this Motion.
The Clause proposes, that where a man cannot get work in his own district and goes to another district to undertake work which is temporary in character—or even of a more permanent character, if it is in a place where he cannot get a house to which to take his wife and family—then under those circumstances and for a limited period he may be able to draw benefit for his dependants in the same way as he would have done if he had remained unemployed. Cases of this kind give rise to a considerable sense of grievance, and they are becoming more and more common as rationalisation or centralisation of work goes on. In the amalgamation of shipyards or factories there is a temptation to close some of them and concentrate work in other places. The result of that is, very often, a temporary demand for considerably more labour than is available in a particular district, and men have to be brought from other districts—in the ordinary course merely temporarily, sometimes for one month or three months and in some cases up to six months. In such cases it is very hard that men who are anxious to work should find their wives and families have temporarily to go on the parish. The situation is likely to become more exaggerated still in certain eventualities which may arise out of the famous Clause 4.
It is possible that more and more frequently men will be required to go to work in various parts of the country away from their homes. Therefore, we ask the
Minister to try to deal with this matter, even though it may not be in the particular way suggested in this new Clause. It proposes that dependants' allowances should continue to be payable for a period of not more than 26 weeks, with a limit on the wage of the workman. If it is not possible for the Government to accede to that proposal, perhaps they will accept the principle of the Clause, because it is most desirable that these married men should have the opportunity of taking work, even though it is away from their homes, without being penalised by finding their families driven on to the parish.

Mr. FOOT: If some proposal of this kind can be adopted it will solve some of the problems with which the Minister of Labour has been confronted. I approached the Minister of Labour some time ago with reference to the question of transferred labour, and one of the difficulties which I experienced was that of inducing men to go from one district to another where the wages are so small. I have already quoted the unfortunate illustration from my own part of the country where the wages are 32s. 8d. net. The full wages are 34s. per week, but certain deductions have to be made for insurance and other payments, and the net wage is 32s. 8d. per week for work on the roads. I understand that there is sometimes a further reduction from the 32s. 8d. on account of wet weather, and we have recently had a disproportionate amount of wet weather. It is estimated that three-quarters of a day's wages per week are lost in this way.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary has recently been confronted with the difficulty that it is impossible to get men to go from a town like Plymouth into some of the country districts in the County of Cornwall, where the wages are so small. When a man goes to work in another part of the country he has to pay, first of all, for his lodgings, and it is extremely difficult for that man to get lodgings at less than 25s. per week. That man who leaves his home to find work as a transferred workman receives 32s. 8d. per week, and he frequently is obliged to pay between 20s. and 25s. per week for his board and lodgings. The result is that he has left a derisory amount. I am not defending the payment of such wages which has rightly been called a scandal, but that
is the difficulty. Whenever I have had an opportunity of interviewing the Department of the Ministry of Labour I have often been confronted with that difficulty.
I know that in some parts of Cornwall an effort has been made to raise wages, and it has been successful in some cases, but even when the wage has been raised to 40s. per week the same difficulty remains. My point is that if a man does comply with a request of the Department by going into a country district in Devon, some provision should be made for his wife in order that she shall not be left to exist on the very narrow margin which is sent to her by her husband which is often barely sufficient to keep body and soul together. That is why we are putting forward this proposal, and if the words of the new Clause cannot be accepted, I hope the principle will be acted upon. I know it may involve some increased burden, but I think it is a burden which we ought to carry. Perhaps some guidance can be given upon this matter, but if it does involve an increased burden then we revert to the position that those who are in need should have the first claim upon the Government.

Mr. LAWSON: I am sure that the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle, East (Sir R. Aske) is one worthy of sympathetic consideration, but the Government cannot accept the principle which the hon. Member has laid down. This new Clause lays down the principle that an employed man shall receive full unemployment benefit, and that is a proposal which the Government cannot accept. I regret that, because we know that this is a matter of very real grievance, and one which gives considerable concern to men in the distressed areas. It is quite true that men from these areas are sent from one part of the country to another and for long weeks they have to remain there living under difficult conditions while their families are in a different part of the country. It is quite true that certain additions in the shape of lodging allowances are given.

Mr. FOOT: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any precise particulars in regard to the lodgings allowance?

Mr. LAWSON: I am afraid I cannot do that. The principal difficulty in this matter is the housing difficulty. It is a well-known fact that employers find great difficulty in getting men with families to transfer, and the chief difficulty is that there are no houses for them to live in. The whole of the industries of the country are changing in such a way that balances of men and women will have to be removed from one part of the country to another. The problem will have to be dealt with on altogether different lines from that which is proposed, and therefore the Government regret that they cannot accept this new Clause.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I think the Parliamentary Secretary has hardly done justice to this new Clause. After all, we are aware that the housing difficulty is one of the things which has aggravated this problem. These men are unable to find suitable accommodation in the districts to which they are transferred. We are fully aware that one of the difficulties is that a man who has been transferred has to maintain two houses, but I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary was accurate when he said that what we were proposing to do by this new Clause was to give unemployment benefit to an employed man. What is proposed in this new Clause is not to give unemployment benefit to the man, but to those who are called upon to live under very trying circumstances when the man has been transferred to another district.
May I point out that my hon. Friend who has moved this new Clause is not wedded to dealing with this problem in the particular way suggested by the words? If it be inconvenient or difficult to meet the case in the precise way here indicated, I feel sure that an indication that this problem is going to be faced in some way would go a long way to make us realise that we need not press the Amendment in this particular form. We have had from the Parliamentary Secretary a reference to lodging allowance, but we do not quite know how that operates, and I think we ought to have some kind of assurance that more consideration is going to be given to this matter, and that more is going to be done in regard to it, than has been the case already. The present circumstances are interfering wits the most important
principle in dealing with the unemployment problem, namely, the fluidity of labour. Ever since the Industrial Transference Board issued its Report, it has been the aim of the last Government, and I think of the present one, to see that the present distressed areas are not simply made a pool of unemployment which remains stagnant. I think that everyone desires that to be ensured, but no one desires it to be ensured in a way that will be oppressive, not so much to the unemployed man who moves, as to his wife and family whom he is compelled to leave at home. I hope, therefore, that the matter will receive rather more definite and detailed consideration than I have gathered from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I should like to say a word on this Amendment, in support of what I think is the appeal of the Mover, not so much that the Amendment itself should be accepted, as that some indication should be given to the Committee of how the Government propose to tackle this problem. If I may say so, the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary would have been perfectly sound in any Debate on any previous Unemployment Insurance Bill. It is true that it is almost impossible, when you have an Unemployment Insurance Fund, to throw upon it, the burden of paying benefit to a man, or to the dependants of a man, who is not unemployed; but this Bill, as has often been pointed out, has gone far beyond an Insurance Bill. The State itself is putting money directly into the Fund for certain particular objects, and, while the Amendment would throw the cost of this proposal on to the Fund and not on to the Exchequer, it is a serious question, when once the resources of the Exchequer have been put at the disposal of the Fund for certain objects, whether this is not the most important object to which those contributions could be devoted. Everyone who has had any experience of trying to transfer labour knows that this is the most serious obstacle to exactly the transfer that is most required.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned houses, and on that point one reply has been given by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith). I should like to give another reply from
my own personal experience. A friend of mine offered to take two married miners from South Wales and settle them at his place in the country, providing them and their families with cottages—building cottages for them if, when they once came, they decided to settle down. Those men, at the best, would have had to spend six months while the cottages were being built, and the result was that, although my friend wanted married men preferably, no married miners would accept the offer on those terms. The wages were considerably better than the wages mentioned by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), but still they were not sufficient to maintain any married man's family during the six months for which he would be absent. This is the most important problem that arises in connection with transference. It is an answer to it to say that expenditure of this kind cannot be thrown upon the Insurance Fund, which is kept up by contributions on an insurance basis. It would be an answer to say, "We cannot afford any more money." But when, as in this scheme, a large volume of Exchequer money is being provided outside the insurance scheme altogether, then, surely, if this particular expenditure is not to fall upon that Exchequer contribution, if that is not one of the objects to which this special Exchequer contribution is to be devoted, I think we might ask the Government to give some indication of how they propose to deal with this problem in other ways, and a rather more extensive indication than was given by the Parliamentary Secretary a few moments ago.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I have every sympathy with the object of this proposed new Clause, but I regret that it has had to be brought in at the end of the Bill, and in a way which I believe cannot be made to apply through the operation of the Bill. I see the difficulty of the Minister and of the Government. It has been urged that you cannot pay an employed man out of an unemployment fund. The Parliamentary Secretary hare said that there is a lodging allowance. That appears really to be going outside the objects of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and it would appear that, if a lodging allowance can be made, a dependant's family allowance might be made. The prime difficulty, however, is
that under this scheme no man ought to be transferred into a wage that does not permit him to keep his family. That is the difficulty that has to be met. I represent one section of a very large area in South Wales which has been very much hit by the transference scheme, and. I have had to go to the Ministry many times. I am bound to say that I have always received as sympathetic consideration as it is possible for the Minister to give under the law, but the difficulties that have arisen have shown that there is a tremendous hiatus in our methods of dealing with the problem of the transference of unemployed labour.
The difficulty arises that, when a man is transferred from one occupation to another, he is invariably compelled to take up one of the lowest paid jobs, usually a labourer's job, where the wage may vary from 10d. to 1s. 2d. per hour; ant, no matter what he gets in his new job, if he is living away from home and has to maintain the wife and family whom he has left behind, he is left in a very difficult situation. I would suggest that the Government, before they complete the Bill, should meet this difficulty. It is not merely a passing phase; it is not something that will pass away in a few months.
The hon. Member who moved the Clause mentioned the question of rationalisation. We are now getting into a position in which industry is avoiding those violent rises and falls which used to take place a few years ago. We have overcome the violent over-production of commodities, with consequent slumps, and we have passed from the era when, while the percentage of unemployed was at one period 3 or 4 per cent. or less, at another period it was 6 or 7 per cent. Industry has overcome that difficulty, and we have now got more correlation between production and available consuming power. But, while industry and the controllers of industry avoid these sudden rises and falls over periods of six, seven, eight or nine years, we have in place of that a permanent reservoir of surplus labour, which is likely to be kept filled for a very considerable period by the process that is now called rationalisation. It seems to me that before long we shall begin to
call it irrationalisation unless some means—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going a long way from the proposed new Clause.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am coming back to the question of surplus labour, transfer, and the maintenance of the man who is transferred. At any rate, that is the point which I wish to make. This is a very serious problem and is not a matter which can be dealt with in any party manner. It is a human problem which concerns a very large number of our fellow countrymen and I am sure that sooner or later it will have to be dealt with along the lines laid down in "Labour and the Nation"—the Labour patty's programme—by the establishment of a living wage.

Mr. FOOT: Why not the Yellow Book?

The CHAIRMAN: This is a question of dependants allowances and not of what might be done under any other Measure which might be produced at any other time.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I leave the matter where it is. I have said what I wanted to say, and I conclude with the hope that before very long the House of Commons will see its way to make adequate provision for dealing with conditions such as I have indicated.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to make special arrangements for notifying vacancies in certain employments.)

The Minister may make regulations, respect of such industries as may seem to him desirable, whereunder vacancies in such employments as are prescribed in the regulations made under this Section may be notified in such areas as are prescribed in such regulations in accordance with special arrangements to be concluded between the Minister and the employers and the associations of workpeople concerned; and the regulations made by the Minister may prescribe that claimants to benefit who are insured in respect of the employments covered by such regulations and who, having complied with the prescribed conditions, have failed to secure employment, shall have established a prima facie claim to benefit.—[Mr. Graham White.]

The CHAIRMAN: Before I call on the hon. Member for East Birkenhead to move his proposed new Clause, may I
ask him a question? Is not this proposal covered by Section 35 (1, b) of the Act of 1920?

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I may answer your question, Sir, in the negative. I do not think that the aims which we seek to accomplish in this new Clause have figured in any previous Measure.

Clause brought up, and read the First, time.

Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
9.0 p.m.
This is a Clause to which we attach considerable importance. As I have just indicated, it seeks to establish a new principle which we think will enable an attack to be made upon one of the most serious blots on our industrial system. We have this evening added to the Bill what is really the first constructive new proposal which has been made in connection with it. That is the new Clause moved by the Minister of Labour and, in spite of the observations of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), I think we ought to try to introduce here proposals which, if not actually insurance, have a constructive purpose which is cognate with the general subject of insurance. That is the nature of the proposal in the new Clause. During the Second Reading Debate I drew attention to the extraordinarily chaotic conditions under which labour is engaged in this country, and I expressed the opinion in connection with Clause 4, over which we have spent so many dreary hours of Parliamentary time, that the right solution of the difficulty with which we were trying to deal was the minority report of the Morris Committee coupled with a constructive Measure for dealing with the engagement of labour. This new Clause has as its object to make a beginning with new and constructive proposals for the engagement of labour which will he complementary to Clause 4 as it was in the original draft of the Bill and as it probably will be when it comes back to the House of Commons on the Report stage. I think it is relevant and indeed necessary to my present purpose that I should remind the Committee of what I said on the Second Reading. I drew attention to the conditions under which
large numbers of men congregate outside works without the slightest protection against the weather and without the slightest sanitary conveniences. At the end of their period of waiting they are often dismissed with scant courtesy. It is an experience which no man would undergo unless he were genuinely seeking work. When these congregations of men break up, they not infrequently do so without any signal or sign from those inside the works, and when the crowd has melted away—to use a popular expression—there may be half a dozen who remain at the street corner when the bulk of the men have gone away. These quietly go into the works when the other men have gone, in accordance with an arrangement made on some previous occasion—an arrangement which is very often neither honourable nor worthy and which is often accompanied by some sort of consideration for the job.
If all the vacancies which become available in industry to-day were notifiable to the Employment Exchanges, we should have had no long discussions in Clause 4. We should have had no "genuinely seeking work" condition. We should have had no problem, and we should have saved an immense amount, not only of Parliamentary time, but of distress and hardship of the kind which we have been discussing during the past few days. The right hon. Lady has indicated that it is impossible to make all the jobs notifiable to the Employment Exchanges and also that it is undesirable to do so, and I agree. There are, in the first place, physical objections to it. We could not, with the present volume of unemployment, make all vacancies available for the simple reason that large masses of men could not come to the Exchanges. They could not be contained in the Exchanges.
There are other reasons which are equally weighty. The people of this country do not like compulsion in anything. It is upon the basis and the principle of making the Employment Exchanges responsible for their original purpose of providing work and notifying vacancies that the solution is to be found of all these difficulties with which we have been confronted in the last few days and in the discussions on all previous Bills. It is on these lines, and on these lines only, that these difficulties will be over-
come. If it is impossible to deal with the matter in this way, it has occurred to us that the best way to solve the difficulty is to put down this enabling Clause which will enable experiments to be made on these lines, and also enable the Minister, for example, to say, when it is agreed between the employers' organisation and the association of employés in a certain district in respect of a certain trade, that all the vacancies in that trade shall be notified to the Employment Exchange, that all these outside stands shall be done away with, and that the men shall attend at the Exchange, if possible, or if not the Exchange, some other place where they may meet in ordinary comfort and be protected from the inclement weather. The conditions under which they have to meet are bad for the men, who often get wet through waiting in the open and whose physical condition deteriorates. It is bad for the men and also bad for the employers. The system by which they congregate on these stands, which, I repeat here, are the modern counterpart of the ancient slave market, is not desired by many employers and is not desired by any considerable number of trade unions. Therefore, if this blot upon the system is one of which, we can get rid, we ought to make up our minds to get rid of it and take the first step necessary towards getting rid of it, for it is a thing which we can cure and cure speedily.
This is not a question of Socialism either in our time or in anybody else's time. If we take the first step now, we can, in a short space of time, clear away this blot of the stand system from the industrial life of our country. We suggest in this enabling Clause that the Minister should take power in conjunction with the associations of employers and of employed and the local officers of her Ministry, to make such arrangements as will enable the employés to attend at a certain place, to enable all the jobs to be, notified, the employers to send, if they wish, their foreman in order to interview men they wish to employ, and the trade union delegates to attend if they wish. We further suggest that arrangements should be made enabling the attendance at such places of applicants in search of work to be recognised as prima facie evidence that a man is seeking work and is entitled to benefit. Such a thing would naturally follow,
because it would be the only place in the area where a man in a particular trade could look for work with any chance of getting work.
I submit, on behalf of the hon. Friends whose names are associated with mine in moving this Clause, that the Clause should receive the favourable consideration of the Committee and also of the Minister. The right approach towards a solution of this matter is in the direction of local experiments in certain areas. I know that in Germany experiments have been tried in respect of certain employments and in certain areas. I am not sure what the results of those experiments have been, but they are, no doubt, available and within the archives of the Ministry presided over by the right hon. Lady.
There is another point which I should like to mention. In the course of these discussions, there arises from time to time references to the number of persons who, for one reason or another, are unemployable. It is a serious problem, but we do not know the magnitude of it, and we have no certain information about it. There is only one way in which the country can find out the nature and size of the problem which requires to be dealt with in that respect, and that is to carry out in each trade some such arrangement as I am foreshadowing here. The Clause which I am moving is not a mere castle in Spain, but an attempt to extend an experiment which has been made and in regard to which there has been a certain amount of experience gained. We suggest that the process of experiment should be carried further, and that it should have official approval and an official standard of regulations made by the right hon. Lady in consultation with all the local interests concerned in the matter.

Miss BONDFIELD: I hope very much that we shall have some discussion on this Clause, because I think it deals with a matter of extreme importance, and 1 should like to know the sense of the Committee upon it. I am very anxious to develop the intention of this Clause. I have a little doubt about whether the last part of it is really in order. It seems rather to suggest the introduction of a new title to benefit. I do not think that this matter should be associated with benefit at all. In regard to the question of building up the work-finding
machinery of the Exchanges in consultation with employers and trade unions, I am absolutely and wholeheartedly in favour of having such experiments made. There is one thing to which, I think, the Mover of the new Clause is clearly alive, and that is, that there is no question of being able to insist upon compulsory notification. It will have to be a voluntary arrangement entered into by the employers. We have an illustration in connection with the Potteries, where 80 per cent. of the employers in the trade have agreed to take all their labour from the Employment Exchanges. That immediately simplifies the whole problem of work-finding. It is an incalculable advantage to the whole machinery of work-finding to have these agreements with employers. I hope very much indeed that it will be possible to carry out the intentions of this Clause, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not press me to adopt the exact words, because that might be a little difficult. But, subject to that, and to what I hope may be the general expression of opinion in the Committee as to the possibility of proceeding in this direction, I shall be glad to give my approval to the proposal.

Mr. WHITE: May I say, in reply to the right hon. Lady, that it was not the intention of the Clause to stake out any claim or any form of claim for benefit.

Lord E. PERCY: The object of the new Clause is, clearly, of enormous importance. My difficulty about it is that it says that the Minister may prepare regulations, but it provides no material for making regulations. She can at the present time make arrangements with employers, as has been done in the pottery industry, by which vacancies can be registered. The new Clause suggests that she should make regulations. About what? Imposing what compulsory power? Imposing what penalty? Offering what advantages? It is suggested that the Minister should make regulations for inducing employers to come to an arrangement, but the only inducement offered is not an inducement to the employer but an inducement to the insured worker, with regard to benefit. What we really want is to offer an inducement to the employer to notify all his vacancies and to make proper arrangements
for engaging his labour. Until you do that and until you have some sort of penalty on the employer who maintains an absurd margin of casual labour over and above his requirements, you will not attack the real root of this evil. You need to decasualise labour. You need to ensure that, as far as possible, the employer shall not engage his workmen in such a way as to make the workmen largely of the casual labour class. All that is done by this new Clause and its suggested regulations is to say to the employer that, if he will notify all his vacancies, then all the people that he will require will gather in one particular street or one particular building. That does not really help to decasualise labour.

Mr. WHITE: In reply to the noble Lord, I would point out that there are many subsidiary advantages which would arise to the employer under this arrangement. For instance, he would have the knowledge that he was protecting public funds by increasing to an enormous degree the better administration of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. He would know that the men whom he wished to engage were always to be found in the same place, and that he could send for his own men. The Clause does not interfere in any way with the right of the employer to engage the men whom he wishes to engage. In the practical working of the idea, so far as it has been carried out in practice, there arc many advantages which the employers have found of benefit to themselves.

Lord E. PERCY: Take the case of the docks. There are arrangements by which the dock employer knows exactly where he can engage his men, but we know that that arrangement alone does not prevent the dock employer from maintaining on his dock register an enormous surplus of casual labour. That does not result in the decasualisation of labour.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: I am not sure whether the new Clause in its present form is necessary, especially the last few lines, in view of Clause 4. The re-drafting of Clause 4 would in any case necessitate the re-modelling of the last part of the new Clause. Whether the new Clause as a whole is necessary or whether it requires to be re-drafted, I think there is tremendous importance
attaching to its objective. It is a misfortune that almost ever since Unemployment Insurance was instituted, the Minister of Labour has had to face an abnormal situation, in which the original function of work finding has been almost entirely absorbed by the function of paying out benefit. Anyone who is familiar with the inside of an exchange knows from experience that so great is the pressure upon the machine by the necessity of paying unemployment benefit to many hundreds of people each week that the job-finding function of the exchanges throughout the country has been subordinated to what was originally the least important of the two functions of the Ministry. So far as we can see ahead, there is no prospect of that matter being put right within the Ministry for a very considerable time.
If in the earlier days a smaller unemployment problem had been dealt with, and the machinery for finding jobs had not been subordinated to the necessity of paying out unemployment benefit, probably the work-finding side of the Ministry would have developed in such a way as to keep pace with the necessities imposed upon it. That has not been the case, and, with an unemployment figure of over 1,000,000, it probably will not be the case for very many years to come. In these circumstances, it seems to me that tremendous importance attaches to devolving the work-finding function of the Ministry. In my own town of Wolverhampton, it is a pathetic sight to see men drawn up day by day, standing in a barn-like building, or down a flight of steps or outside a yard, waiting, in all kinds of weather, because the whole function is concentrated within that particular building. It ought to be possible to devolve that function and to distribute it in various parts of the town. That is one of the objects of the new Clause. Subject to what the Minister may say as to whether the new Clause is necessary, because she already has power to make arrangements, I think the sense of the Committee, including the fourth party, is in favour of encouraging the Ministry to proceed as far as possible along the lines suggested.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: This new Clause seems to raise a rather serious question. I gather that the intention is to provide for regulations whereby a
voluntary arrangement will be made under which employers' associations may notify vacancies. There seems nothing to prevent penalties being inflicted for failure to notify. While it may well be that circumstances may arise in which it may be right and proper for penalties to be inflicted for non-notification, that would be far too serious a matter to put into the hands of any Minister, without qualification, because, while it may be true that such associations of employers and associations of workpeople may have consented to the arrangement, and would thereby be consenting to their own liability, once the regulations were made, they would have a wider application, and they might affect employers other than those who had assented to the arrangement. There would be power given to the Minister to involve others in liability to penalties of a quasi-criminal character, without this House having the smallest say in the matter. While the principle of the new Clause is extremely good that notification should be encouraged, if we are to take a step which may involve the question of penalties, there ought to be more adequate safeguards than there are in this Clause.

Mr. E. BROWN: I can realise the force of the criticisms that have been made. We had no intention in regard to penalties when we drafted the Clause. We drew the Clause in its present foam, allied to benefit, because we thought we might not get it in in any other way. In this Clause, we approach the notification problem from the simplest end. The most difficult part of the unemployment problem must always be to supply single jobs, or jobs in small numbers. Here you are dealing with large masses of men going to a particular place, say, in a shipbuilding or engineering town, where no adequate accommodation is provided. Our intention is not to suggest a penalty, but to give the Minister power to facilitate arrangements suggested in the Clause, and to make it possible that a man may sign on there, and thereby make a prima facie case that he is genuinely seeking work, as he is now asked to do. At the moment it is impossible to check large masses of men unless you have a special arrangement and a clerk of the Ministry calling the roll at the end of the job. We are not concerned with the words in the
Clause, but we do regard the issue raised by it as one of the very biggest which can be raised in connection with this matter.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: We appreciate the sympathetic reception given by the Minister of Labour and Members in all quarters of the House to this proposal. It is recognised that this new Clause touches questions of very great importance and suggests a reform which is eminently desirable in the interests of those who are temporarily without work. Our present arrangements impose very great hardships on numbers of working people and are really uncivilised in some respects and unworthy of a highly-developed industrial community such as ours. The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) stated, quite rightly, that when the Employment Exchanges were first established it was intended that their. main purpose should be that of Labour Exchanges. I was a Member of the Government of that day, and certainly our intention was that the chief object of these new institutions should be to save people from the hardships and discomforts which arose from searching and struggling for work in large competitive crowds. Unemployment insurance came into force at the same time, and naturally the two schemes were linked together, and in the course of events which have since occurred the unemployment insurance side of the work of the Labour Exchanges has become much more bulky and far more conspicuous than the other.
The purpose of this Clause is to suggest to the Ministry of Labour that it should take more active steps if possible to introduce more rational methods of enlistment of labour and to promote its decasualisation. It was not intended that it should have a compulsory effect. It would be useful if in an Act of Parliament there were some kind of declaratory Clause expressing what is the desire of Parliament. Such a Clause would stimulate the Ministry, and make it its clear duty to perform those functions, and arm it with further moral authority in approaching employers. If there is a Clause in an Act of Parliament, when circularising employers that Clause would no doubt have considerable influence upon them and be a reason for the
Ministry to approach them and be a direction by Parliament to proceed along those lines. In those circumstances, it does seem to us desirable that there should be a Clause of this nature in this Act when it finally leaves this House. As my hon. Friends have said, we are not tied to the precise wording that we have suggested, and we recognise that the latter part of the Clause is open to some objection. In view of the very sympathetic reception that has been given to it by the Minister and by the Committee, I would propose, if this Clause were now withdrawn, that she should offer to prepare a Clause with the assistance of the Department and the draftsmen, which would effect what is obviously the desire of the whole Committee, while freeing the provision from such objection as may reasonably be raised against the present drafting.

Miss BONDFIELD: I very gladly accept that suggestion and will consider the preparation of a declaratory Clause which will meet the case.

Mr. G. WHITE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Spennymoor has four new Clauses on the Order Paper, and I propose to take the second one.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Payment of contributions in insurable occupations.)

Where any person has paid unemployment contributions for a period of five years and then goes into an uninsurable occupation he shall be entitled to pay his own and the employers contributions and be entitled to draw benefit.—[Mr. Batey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. BATEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I move this Clause for the purpose of enabling a number of men to remain members of the fund who are prevented from doing so at the present time. In the colliery villages, we have started workmen's clubs whose members are drawn from the mining classes. When they are in the mines, they are able to pay to the Insurance Fund. As soon as a man becomes a steward of a workmen's club, as he is not in any insurable trade, he has to leave the fund. Many of
these men are desirous of continuing payment to the fund. The object of this new Clause is to meet that position. I think it would be a. very considerable improvement because so long as the men are stewards of clubs they will be paying to the fund hut not able to draw benefit. It would enable them to go back into the mines and still be members of the fund instead of leaving it. That also applies to caretakers of workmen's institutes and schools. Since we have had distress in the mining areas many of our people are glad to get a position of any sort, and they become caretakers of schools or workmen's institutes. I am anxious to enable these people to continue to be members of the fund, because it will not be a disadvantage hut an advantage to the fund.
I can anticipate the Minister's argument that this new Clause would be opening the door too widely. Perhaps it might. It might open the door to men in any uninsurable trade, but a large number of our people are glad to take temporary work anywhere, and, even if it did open the door a little way, it may be wise, to do so in order that they can take up temporary employment and keep their connection with the Insurance Fund. Then when they leave uninsurable work they can go back in the mines and be members of the fund. My chief object is to meet the position of stewards of clubs and caretakers of workmen's institutes and schools. If the Minister cannot accept the Clause in its fullness, I would like her to say what she can do, so that we can put down words to meet it on Report stage.

Mr. TINKER: I wish to support this new Clause. I have had a good number of applications from people situated as the hon. Member has stated. They ask that something should be done to give them an opportunity of continuing in the fund. I can confirm that, because in my own constituency there are quite a number of working men's clubs of all kinds, Labour, Conservative and Liberal. The stewards of these clubs are taken from the milling community. These men have to cease paying to the fund. Therefore, if nothing is done, they do not get benefit. They ask for the opportunity of being able to continue if they take on such a position. We recognise that the Minister has accepted an Amendment to
cover the two years already, and I am wondering whether this Clause will cut across that Amendment. If she can accept this Clause we shall be very glad.

Miss BONDFIELD: I am very sorry that it will not be possible to accept this Amendment. It cuts across the basis of the principal Act. It widens the basis of persons who may be regarded as being in insurable occupations, without taking steps to widen that ambit. I have already made a considerable step in advance in this direction on a previous Amendment and I am very sorry that I cannot accept this proposal.

Mr. STEPHEN: I should like to put one point to the Minister of Labour. During these times of industrial depression a number of unemployed people have been able to get their friends to advance them a little capital with which to start a small business. After they have been in it for some time they find either that they are getting on very well, or that it is not possible to make it a success, and in the latter case they have to leave the small business and look for work again. They find it difficult to get work, and during the time they cease to conduct this small business and the time they are looking for a job they are under very difficult circumstances. They are ruled out from obtaining benefit. I wonder whether the Minister will look into this matter and consider the possibility of providing for these people who are making this attempt to get out of their terribly depressed conditions. There are quite a number of people in every industrial district who have made this attempt, and I hope she will reconsider the matter in order to encourage them to make an endeavour to help themselves in the assurance that if they fail and have to come back to the ordinary field of unemployment they will have the Unemployment Insurance Fund to fall back upon until they find employment.

Mr. GOULD: I should like to support what the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has said. There are quite a number of men who have made an effort to find work in an uninsurable trade and, although there is the understanding that employment in an uninsurable trade will not deprive them of their right of appeal, what we find is that if they have spent 10, 12 or 20 weeks in an uninsurable trade
they have found it difficult to establish their claim again as in an insurable occupation. There is a great fear in the minds of unemployed men that they do prejudice their claim by looking to an uninsurable trade for temporary work, and I hope the right hon. Lady will give this point her very serious consideration in view of the fact that this fear prevents men and women looking for opportunities of employment in uninsurable trades, and secure to them the right to follow it without the risk or danger of prejudicing their rights under the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There may be valid reasons for rejecting this new Clause, but they have not been forthcoming from the right hon. Lady. The great object of the nation at the present time is to get employment for the people, and, if these men are inclined to refuse employment because it is an uninsurable occupation, it reacts to the disadvantage of the whole community. Up to 1924, a man who had paid his insurance contributions was entitled to recover them. That is no longer the case, and there is a strong deterrent to women going into domestic service and to men taking employment on the land because they feel they are going to lose the benefit of years of contributions.
There may be valid reasons against dealing with this matter in this way, but T would point out that under the Health Insurance Act it is possible for a man or woman to become a voluntary contributor. I do not know why that should not be the case under the Unemployment Insurance Act. If it was so, it would encourage a large number of persons to take work which they at present refuse, and, therefore, I submit that the right hon. Lady, or anyone who is assisting her on the Front Bench at the moment—nobody has assisted her very much so far, although I see that the Minister of Labour in the Socialist. Government of 1924 is here; what for I have not the slightest idea, nor has anybody else—before the new Clause, which does benefit the Unemployment Fund and increases the chances of men getting work, is withdrawn, should give us a little more adequate reasons why the Clause is unacceptable.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I really think that this Amendment needs a little more consideration than the right hon. Lady has given to it. May I put one or two cases? There is the case of the agricultural labourer. It is a very difficult job to get casual labour at certain times of the year. When the potato picking season arrives, as well as other classes of vegetable cultivation, and also in the ease of sugar-beet lifting, a, considerable amount of extra labour is required. At the present time a large number of agricultural labourers come from Ireland, who take the money back to Ireland and spend it in that country, riot in England. If the right hon. Lady would consider this question a little more it is quite possible that she would be able to introduce legislation which would improve the prospects of employing English agricultural labourers in this country instead of Irish agricultural labourers. I hope we shall give further consideration to this Amendment because there is a great deal more in it than meets the eye.

Mr. J. JONES: I am one of the very few Irish Members in this House, and I regret to hear the racial animosity which has been reflected in the speech just delivered. When I came to England from Ireland I came with a bare face. I want to ask the right hon. Lady and the Committee whether they agree that this is a, question of Irishmen, Englishmen, Scotsmen or Welshmen. This is an Insurance Bill, and we are supposed to be discussing the needs of individuals under this scheme. I suggest that the only question before the Committee is the right of the child to receive benefit under the insurance scheme. You can have all you like. I do not care what you have; you will not get it.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member is speaking to the wrong Clause. This has nothing to do with children.

Mr. JONES: I never did speak to the right Clause, and I, therefore, withdraw and apologise, hoping to have an opportunity of speaking to the right Clause.

Miss BONDFIELD: I did not deal at length with this new Clause, because it seemed to me obviously the wrong way to do things. It suggests that you should allow people voluntarily to pay
contributions while in an uninsurable occupation in order that they can ultimately get benefits. That is the wrong way. I have just agreed to an Amendment which, I think, some Members who were not in the House at the time may not be aware of; I have promised to incorporate a proposal on the Report stage to lengthen to two years the time in an uninsurable occupation without the loss of qualification. That meets substantially the main point of this Amendment, and it is as far as the Committee should expect me to go in this matter. If it be desired to increase the categories of insured persons it cannot be done by a Clause like this.

Mr. BATEY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Payment of benefits in respect of persons under sixteen.)

The benefits payable under this Act in respect of any person who has not attained the age of sixteen years shall be payable to the claimant's mother (if the mother shall by notice in writing to the insurance officer so require) in such manner as the Minister by regulations made under the principal Act shall direct; provided that in cases where the claimant does not reside with his mother or where the Minister is satisfied that for some other reason the payment of benefit to the claimant's mother is undesirable the benefits shall be payable to the claimant or to such other person as the Minister, having regard to all the circumstances, shall by regulations authorise.—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is the Clause on which the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) rather prematurely spoke just now. I hope that as the subject in which he is interested is now before the Committee he will give us the benefit of his enlightenment at a later stage. This new Clause is a permissive Clause. It enables the benefit, in certain circumstances, in respect of children under 16, to he paid to the mother. I submit that it is a suitable appendage to the Clause which lowers the age of insurance to 15. I realise that on a first view there may seem to be very valid objections to the Clause. Many of ray hon. Friends in
this Committee have proud recollections of the day on which they first brought back their wages to their mothers. I am sure that I can include my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown in that number.

Mr. J. JONES: Hear, hear! Two-and-a-tanner for eighty hours.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is a grave reflection on times past. I hope that the two-and-a-tanner was taken back in solid form?

Mr. JONES: Hear, hear!

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I quite agree that no recollection could be more poignant or sentimental than the recollection of the first day on which a boy took back his wages to his mother, but I hope that no confusion of thought will arise on account of that. We are not dealing in this Bill with the disposition of the first wages of a boy. We are not dealing with his first employment. We are dealing with his first unemployment. I think that no Member of the Committee could be so individualistic as to maintain that it was a matter of indifference as to what the child did with this money. If you look at recent legislation you realise that we have safeguarded the child under 16 with a particular care. Only a fortnight ago, under the Contributory Pensions Bill, we raised the age from 14 to 16 in respect of which an allowance might be paid to the mother for her child. Why should you differentiate within a fortnight between the child in respect of whom a mother is to draw a pension under the Contributory Pensions Act and in respect of the child that comes under this Bill?
The Children Act, for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was responsible, made it a penal offence to sell spirits to a child under 16. The child under 16 is not allowed to buy tobacco or cigarettes. Special Courts, the juvenile Courts, are established for young persons, who are not allowed to be tried either in the same place or at the same time as older offenders. They cannot be conveyed to and from the Court in the same vehicles as older offenders. This Bill is professedly introduced in order to spare the child from unpleasant contacts, but what contact could be more unpleasant than the contact of a child with the grinding machinery of the Employment Exchange?
It is in order to spare the child that contact that I have drafted this Clause. But I go further in reference to past legislation. The legal responsibility for maintaining a child rests upon the parents; a Board of Guardians can require the parents to contribute to the support of a child. Why should you make an exception in this Bill? Surely the benefit ought to be paid where the responsibility rests?
What happened on the Second Reading of the Bill? Where did the whole weight of the argument lie? My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) made a very passionate and moving speech, in which he talked about the responsibility of parents in maintaining their children. This Bill does not bring a penny into the pockets of the breadwinner, of the head of the family. It enables benefit to be paid to a child of 16. That does not enable the persons about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton was talking, to purchase more books or more food for their children. The Bill simply puts money, without condition, in very unfortunate circumstances, into the pockets of children. What can be the objection to this Clause It may be said that the decent child already takes the money home to his parents. Are you going to give a legislative advantage to the child who is not decent, to the child who stops on the way home and, although he knows that the larder may be empty, prefers not to take that money home? The decent child, anyhow, will take the money home. I want to secure that the money shall go into the home in all circumstances, whether the child be good or be bad.
What is another objection to the Clause? It is said that wages are paid to the child when it is in work. Certainly they are. What did the Minister say? She said she wished to inculcate habits of independence in the child. What could be a greater stimulus to the child than to know that if it gets a job it will be able to enjoy the pride of taking its wages home, whereas if it does not get a job, its mother will get the money, and if it is a proud thing to take home the wages that you have earned, who can say it is an enviable thing to be able to take home a dole which you have not earned? Would hon. Members opposite
who have told me how proud they were to take home their wages have been equally proud to take home something that they have not earned? What credit could possibly rest upon the child for taking home something that was doled out to it in the Employment Exchange?
Hon. Members have to make up their minds. They cannot talk about the deprivation of the home and reject this Clause. If their desire is to give the mothers the benefit of the money, so that they can keep their children in good health and good condition, they cannot vote against the Clause, for it has nothing to do with money that is earned. It is to do with money that is unearned. Some hon. Members opposite suffer from the delusion that they can redress the inequalities of society by giving 6s. a week to a child, or any other sum of money to any other human being. The inequalities in this social world of ours arise, not because of an uneven distribution of wealth, but because of an uneven distribution of opportunity. What differentiates the child who leaves the council school at the age of 15 from the child who goes to Eton at 15, is not 6s. a week, but an entirely different, opportunity. I want to establish 'this principle, that maintenance grants shall be paid to parents, so that you will create no vested interest in unemployment, but will rather create a vested interest in raising the school-leaving age to 16. I wish hon. Members opposite had taken the great opportunity that presents itself to them of raising the school age to 16 and thus doing away with the gap, rather than lowering the age at which the child is stamped with the brand of Cain. Therefore I move the Clause with great confidence, because it secures that the money you are giving to the child shall be spent in the best interest of the child and because, also, it is a recognition of the responsibilities of motherhood.

10.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment in my name to the First Schedule on similar lines to this new Clause. I should like to have your ruling, Sir, whether, if this Clause is defeated, my Amendment will be in order, especially as it was on the Paper long before the new Clause was put down.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not cognisant of the time when new Clauses or anything else were put on the Paper. We are discussing this Clause at the moment, and, if the other Amendment covers the same ground, it is not likely to be called.

Mr. LAWSON: When hon. Members first raised this point, I failed to understand on what ground they based their demand for the principle of the Clause. I now gather from the hon. Member's exceedingly able speech, dealing with a very difficult subject, that the real position is that they want to keep the boy from contact with adults at the Exchange. The boy never comes in contact with adults, for he is paid at a different department. The hon. Member has assumed that the juvenile is getting something for which he has not paid. He made the point that he could understand the great pride the boy took in giving his first wages to his mother. If any mother was to suggest that she should go to the pay office and take the boy's wages because he was not fit to carry them home, there is no Member of the Committee who would have any respect for such a mother who had not sufficient trust and faith and admiration for her boy.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we would no longer respect a mother because her son did not take the money home?

Mr. LAWSON: I think we should not have much respect for a mother who had not sufficient faith in her boy. As a matter of fact, it is not true that the boy has not earned the money. He only gets what he is entitled to and, therefore, it is not true at all to assume that the boy is getting something which is charity, or what is called the dole, instead of something for which he has paid.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it not a fact that the other side have suggested that the boy is paid too much?

Mr. LAWSON: My hon. Friend is right, because there are Amendments down suggesting that the boy is paid too much and that the amount should actually be reduced. But, apart from that, I submit that there is not a Member who would not have felt that it was a reflection upon himself as a boy if he had not been allowed to carry the money home, and he would certainly have felt that it was a
grave reflection on him if his mother suggested that he was not sufficiently capable and honest and reliable to carry it home.

Mr. FOOT: Is not the point being strained in saying that it is a reflection upon the boy? I do not know that a father would look upon it as being a reflection on his boy if an arrangement of this kind were made that the mother was to receive the money. May there not be a proper pride on the part of the boy that where there is this need in the home he is conscious of the fact and that there is being directly contributed to the means of the home the six shillings, partly provided for by his own contributions? Why should that infer some humiliation to the boy? It is an assurance that the six shillings, which was intended for the upkeep of the home, should always go in that direction. Is there no danger that it may go in other directions? [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] I think those hon. Members who say "No" are some of the beardless bachelors on the other side. When the suggestion was made just now that the boy did not take his money home, I think it was suggested that there might be the brand of Cain, only "Cain" might not be spelt in the usual way in that connection. I ask hon. Members opposite to take that into consideration.
Does it necessarily mean humiliation to the boy because this arrangement has been made, probably with his own consent? Why not? It does not necessarily mean that the mother is going to act over the head of the boy and contrary to his wishes. This Amendment may contemplate an arrangement that is made in the home, that the money shall be paid direct to the mother instead of to the boy, and I think the advantage of the proposal is that we shall be able to ensure that the money that is needed for the upkeep of the home shall go, to the extent of every penny, to the upkeep of the home, and to the advantage of the boy himself. I ask that the Amendment shall not be dismissed as being an irrelevant and unimportant Amendment. It contains an important principle. Hon. Members opposite will appreciate that throughout the country there is a great deal of apprehension as far as the application of this scheme to boys between 15 and 16 years of age is con-
cerned—perhaps greater apprehension than they at present realise—and I think that that apprehension will to some extent be removed if this Clause can be introduced. It does not make it obligatory, but it makes it possible, after family arrangement, that the money should be paid direct to the mother.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Before an hon. Member on these benches speaks on this Amendment he has to assume a great deal. After having assumed that it is a good thing for these juveniles to be brought into the atmosphere of the Employment Exchanges, and after having assumed that there will be sufficient juvenile unemployment to justify any such daring experiment, I think we can say on these benches that there is no harm in this Amendment. I think every hon. Member in this House has appealed at some time to the cause of youth and has tried to move election audiences by appeals to young people for their support and by promises to support them, and I think every hon. Member is sufficient of a psychologist to know that the age between 14 and 16 is probably the most important in the spiritual, moral, intellectual, and educational development of the young citizen. Everybody knows that at this particular age, the age of adolescence, when these members of our population are no longer children and not yet young men and women, when they are on the threshold of their experience of life, we should be most careful in dealing with them.
One would have thought, therefore, that the Government, in approaching this problem in relation to unemployment, would at any rate have used all the skill and care and scientific knowledge that they possess to deal with it properly, but what do we find? We find, on the one hand, that the Government are prepared to extort these contributions from these juveniles without any relation at all to the risk of juvenile unemployment. On the other hand, we find that they are prepared to expend what they collect from the individual members of the juvenile population without any regard to how it is going to be spent, and this seems to me to embody an attitude at once mercenary and careless. On the first occasion on which they had the
opportunity, the Government resisted the only possible excuse for bringing these juveniles into unemployment benefit, which was to make payment of benefit dependent on training. They really persisted in their refusal to-day, but one would have thought that they would have taken some steps to see that this money was properly spent. After all, legislation must be considered with reference to general rules and not to exceptions. As a rule the vast majority of these young people who are going to benefit under this new Bill will be living with their fathers and mothers.
I think that hon. Members opposite have taken an entirely optimistic view of human nature in this matter. I am sorry, but I say that it is in the nature of young children of all classes not to know their own interests in relation to money. Certainly it was my own experience. I had the great privilege of being educated at Eton, but the pocket money which I received from my parents was not very great, and I confess that it was invariably misspent. I say that quite frankly, but I do not think I am so entirely different from all other young people in England as to be an exception in wickedness. I think that throughout the whole population it is in the nature of young people not to know how to spend their money. The famous German philosopher Nietsche said it was in the nature of children to prefer sweetmeats to bread, but after all sweetmeats are comparatively harmless things.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) introduced a very high ideal at the beginning of these Debates, when he said that we should act as politicians as we would act as fathers, and in introducing that analogy to family life he was only following the example of another great political philosopher, the philosopher Plato. Hon. Members on all sides will probably agree that if we could possibly bring that analogy into our political life we should be achieving a great deal. Is this really going to help family life at all? There is no guarantee that this money which is going to be brought in to the children will be properly, sensibly, or evenly decently spent. I think there is a very serious danger that it will only reach the pockets of the purveyors of cheap amusements, and I think very
likely that these new payments, which will not in any way help the family in a number of instances, will lead away the children from their families and from their families' influence as surely as did the Pied Piper of Hamelin. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen seem to think that a reference to poetry means a peroration, but that is far from being the case with me.
The first and second Clauses of this Bill, without this new Clause, will show the recklessness of unscientific expenditure in which the largest party in the State indulge when they embark on important legislation. Let me refer again to the great principle which was enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton, that we should act in this matter as politicians as we would act as fathers. If we could embody that principle into every piece of legislation which we attempt to pass, we should become Christian statesmen of the highest type. Let us apply it to this one new Clause, for, after all, he who is faithful in small things is faithful in great. Imagine a father of a family with six shillings which he can barely snare would it be wise to hand that six shillings to his child as pocket money? Would it not be wiser for him to keep that six shillings and spend it on his child's food or clothing, or, perhaps, even save it for the child? Would it not be a better way of giving the child a better show in life, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton wishes us to do? If we cannot; act thus as fathers in this matter, how much less can we act as statesmen of a great nation? Why should we hand out this money to young children? If we do it, we are really doing it in a cause which may very likely pauperise and demoralise the children of this country who are our special care.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): The charming and poetical oration of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) has brought me to my feet, but I would refer him to the description of the speeches of Gratiano by his friend Bassanio:
His reasons are two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff.
I have had the advantage of taking wages home at the age of 10, and the hon. Gentleman's remarks are quite undeserved. In 99 per cent. of the cases coming under this category, the child
will have earned wages for at least 30 weeks and taken these wages home. Is there any reason to assume that that child is not as capable of taking his benefit home as he is of taking his wages home? Those of us who began life as child workers and took their wages home think that there is no earthly necessity for this Clause. It deals with a very simple matter, and there is no need for the hon. Member for Eastbourne to wander through the philosophy of Plato and quote the Pied Piper of Hamelin to show whether a boy of 16 is or is not able to take his benefit home, or whether his mother should be sent for. It is a matter of common sense and common experience, and common sense and common experience say that the boy is quite as capable of taking his benefit home as he is of faking his wages home. See what the new Clause says. It lays down the administrative duty, literally, of finding out whether the claimant's mother is undesirable when she makes the application. Apparently an investigation has to be made as to whether she herself is a desirable person to have the money.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Where did you get that from?

Mr. SHAW: If the hon. Member instead of being studiously insulting—

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. I did not hear the expression. If hon. Members would be quieter, one could listen to the speeches. The Table did not hear the expression, and therefore I cannot interfere.

Sir B. PETO: On a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS "Sit down!"] Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to misquote the terms of the Clause so as to cast a reflection on the mother of a claimant.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. I must ask hon. Members not to interrupt.

HON. MEMBERS: It is not a point of Order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot hear whether it is or not. I want to hear it.

Sir B. PETO: May I put my point of Order to you again, Sir? The question
is whether the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to misquote the terms of the hon. Member's Clause so as to cast the reflection that the mother of the child is an undesirable person, because there are no such words in the Clause. [Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The point raised by the hon. Member is not a point of Order. If an hon. Member misquotes anything, he may be asked to correct it. It does not come within my province to correct misquotations.

Mr. ALBERY: rose—

Mr. J. JONES: Take your gruel like we have to do. Sit down!

Mr. ALBERY: I rise to a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in asserting that an hon. Member has made a speech in a studiously insulting manner, and is it not a fact—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: rose—

Mr. ALBERY: May I complete my point of Order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already said, and I am perfectly honest, when I repeat I did not hear the expression. The Chair did not hear the expression—[HON. MEMBERS: "We did!"]—and therefore I cannot interfere.

Mr. SHAW: rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we must allow the right hon. Gentleman to explain.

Mr. SHAW: May I explain that certain hon. Gentlemen opposite were not in the Chamber when I made the reference to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), and consequently they have not the slightest idea what was said.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sure that the Secretary of State for War, occupying the position which he does, would not wish to do an injustice to an hon. Member who is a colleague of his in this House. The right hon. Gentleman characterised my speech as being "studiously offensive." [HON. MEMBERS: "So it was."] I ask hon. Members opposite, is it fair to say that to an hon. Member who has been charged with something? I am within the recollection of the Committee and of every honest Mem-
ber in it. I said nothing that was studiously offensive—[An HON. MEMBER: "You did."]—if I did, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to specify what; otherwise, I can only attribute his remark to the evidence of his own courtesy.

Mr. SHAW: When the hon. Member made his previous speech, he said "the ex-Minister for Labour has come down to the House. I do not know what he has come for, nor does anybody else"—[Interruption].

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I want to ask you, Mr. Dunnico, whether it is in order for a right hon. Gentleman during the discussion of this Clause, to refer to a speech which he had an ample opportunity—[Interruption.]—I desire to have your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, on the point whether the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to refer to a speech which was made on a previous Clause, a speech to which he himself listened, and to which he could have replied had he been able to do so.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not really a point of Order. It is quite a common practice in these discussions to refer to speeches made the day before, and therefore I could not say that that is out of order. May I appeal to the Committee. If remarks are made to which hon. Members take exception, they are bound to lead to retaliation. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides to try and conduct this Debate without referring to one another in offensive terms.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am asking for your protection, Mr. Dunnico, from the most indecorous language of the right hon. Gentleman. I am unconscious of having—[Interruption]—some hon. Gentlemen are—been studiously insulting to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to direct your attention to Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice," on page 325 of which it is stated that
The use of temperate and decorous language is never more desirable than when a Member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate. The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged; misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation; charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind—
all of these are stated to be unparliamentary, and would., of course, be ruled out of order. I am charged with using studiously insulting language, and I ask you, Mr. Dunnico, as Chairman of this Committee, whether, had I done so, you would not have ruled me out of order, and whether, you not having ruled me out of order, it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman to accuse me?

Mr. MACKINDER: On that point of Order. May I remind you, Sir, and the Committee, that last week the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) studiously and deliberately accused the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) of selling the children?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I wish that the paragraph which the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) has read out from Erskine May might be printed daily on the Order Paper. I have already said that I did not hear the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, but, if that Expression were used, it is at least an undesirable expression, and I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman would not desire to say anything which was undesirable.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. SHAW: I come now to the new Clause—

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! [Interruption.]

Mr. ALBERY: On a point of Order. [Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?

Mr. ALBERY: Yes, Mr. Dunnico. I wish to ask you, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he used that language, whether he should not be desired to withdraw it?

Mr. MOSES: On a point of Order. As regards the expression that was used in the first place, was not that an insulting expression towards the Secretary of State for War?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not admitted to me that he made use of the expression.

Sir PATRICK FORD: Am I in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman to state definitely if he used that expression?

Mr. SHAW: This new Clause—

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

Sir P. FORD: On a point of Order. May I have Ruling from the Chair as to whether the right hon. Gentleman did use that expression or not.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already informed the Committee that I did not hear the expression.

Mr. SHAW: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Committee to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of proceeding with his speech.

Mr. McKINLAY: Is it in order for hon. Members above the Gangway on the other side to say that you, Mr. Chairman, did hear what the right hon. Gentleman said?

Sir P. FORD: On a point of Order. May I point out—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—that we are not saying that you heard anything, but that we are asking the right hon. Gentleman himself if he used the expression.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: On a point of Order—[Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No further point of Order can arise. The Secretary of State for War.

Mr. SHAW: The last part of this new Clause—

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

Sir H. SAMUEL: On a point of Order. I am sure that the whole House desires to terminate this scene and to get on with business. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), in the course of his speech, made an observation which was not, I am sure, intended to be insulting, but rather to be an amusing observation. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the Committee are exceedingly glad to see the Secretary of State for War in his place, and we all cordially welcome his intervention in Debate. My hon. Friend made an observation which was, I am sure, intended to be of a semi-humorous character—[Interruption]. I am only trying to pave the way to a resumption of business. Upon that, the Secretary of State for War commented in very severe terms.
in terms which, I understand, the Chairman would have ruled, if he had noticed them, as having been undesirable. That being so, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend behind does not desire to make any observations to hurt the feelings or arouse the wrath of the Secretary of State for War, nor does the Secretary of State for War desire to make any observations which the Chair would think undesirable. I am sure that the hon. Member for Devonport will agree that I am expressing his mind, and I hope that in these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will not insist on his rather severe observations.

Mr. SHAW: If the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) says that his remarks were not meant to be insulting in any way, I will at once consider the question of what I can do—[Interruption].

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sorry, Mr. Dunnico, if it should fall to me to teach the right hon. Gentleman how to behave himself.

An HON. MEMBER: You dirty little pig.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: A remark was made somewhere in that corner which was entirely unparliamentary, and it was an expression which ought never to have been used in this House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I would put it to you, Mr. Dunnico, that whoever made the remark had considerable provocation—[Interruption]. Is it in order—[Interruption].

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No matter what the provocation may be, an expression of that kind should never be used in this House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it in order for the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) to talk about the manners of hon. or right hon. Members on these benches? Is that in order? May I ask for your Ruling?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has taken the unusual course of saying that he will consider whether he will with-
draw his expression. I can only repeat now, what I said at the beginning, that I would unreservedly withdraw any insulting observations that I ever made in this House. I have never in my life intentionally made an insulting observation. I did humorously remark—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh! Withdraw!"] I did humorously remark—[Interruption]. There were only about 20 hon. Members opposite when it happened. Why, therefore, are hon. Members opposite so persistent in their interruptions? I did humorously make an observation which has been considered perfectly legitimate in all quarters of the House, that the right hon. Lady was conducting her Bill without assistance. I pointed out that the Secretary of State for War was sitting by her side, and did not come to her assistance. [Interruption]. That is a perfectly accurate statement, as everybody in the Committee knows. Why are hon. Members opposite so eager to interrupt me? I asked why the right hon. Gentleman was here at all. I have since learned why he was here.

Mr. SHAW: I shall now proceed to discuss the new Clause.

HON. MEMBERS: No! Withdraw!

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought that the hon. Member for Devonport stated that he meant no offence, and that he did not intend to be offensive.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Hear, hear!

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought that that statement might relieve the position and that we might get on with the business. I thought the hon. Member would respond to the appeal of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel).

Sir H. SAMUEL: I made an appeal to my hon. Friend to make such a statement, and I appealed to the right hon. Gentleman also to withdraw his rather harsh observation. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman said that, if my hon. Friend would withdraw, he would consider what action he would take. That is not the usual course in this House. The usual course is for an hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench in such circumstances to say: "Of course, if the hon. Member withdraws his remark, I will withdraw mine." If
the right hon. Gentleman will give that assurance, my hon. Friend will immediately withdraw his observations.

Mr. SHAW: Unqualified withdrawal on both sides, Yes.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is not nor has there ever been any question about that. I certainly reciprocate what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. SHAW: I agree to an unqualified withdrawal on both sides. Turning to the new Clause I suggest that the last part of it is undesirable, complicated, and unnecessary. See what the onus is which falls on the Minister. First of all, the Minister has to say whether the payment to the claimant's mother is desirable or not and then to decide how the particular benefit is to be paid. A complicated mechanism is set up which is totally unnecessary and wide of the mark and likely to lead to inquiries as to whether the mother is a person who ought to be given the control more than anybody else. I admit at once that there may be some boy who might draw his benefit at the Employment Exchange and not take it home. That boy might have been taking wages, and there is no reason to assume that in this case a complicated mechanism and a bureaucratic control is any more necessary in order to ensure that in, say, one case in a thousand, a boy should be prevented from going home without the money he has drawn from an Employment Exchange. The new Clause is totally unnecessary and practical experience of working-class life would prove it to be so. It would lead to 10 times more complications, and I suggest that it should be withdrawn.

Viscountess ASTOR: I do not see any harm in the Clause. It is no reflection on either the child or the mother. It is really a protection. All mothers and children are not alike, and the conditions here are quite different from the case of a child who is in work and bringing his wages home. The child might be out of work for weeks and weeks, and everyone knows that nothing is more demoralising for grown-ups than being out of work. In the case of the child, it is five times as demoralising. I cannot see what is the Minister's objection. I speak from the point of view of having a good many sons, and I am perfectly certain that, whereas it might not affect one child to
be out of work for a long time, another might be of quite a different disposition and if I, as the mother, had any control over his money, I would rather do it. The hon. Member is perfectly right in bringing forward this Clause because I am perfectly certain it will help many cases which the right hon. Lady will want to help. There are hon. Members in this House whose wives would be very wise to take their salaries before they get them.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. LINDLEY: Is the Noble Lady referring to hen. Members on her own side of the House?

Viscountess ASTOR: The hon. Lady is not the Secretary of State for War; she knows when not to say who she is referring to. [Interruption.] I do not think—

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of' Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will address the Chair we may keep some semblance of order.

11.0 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: My heart aches; and certainly I am not going to add to your burdens, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, tonight, but when hon. Members opposite, gentlemen in silk hats, Socialist in silk hats, say that we do not understand working men and women the temptation, Mr. Dunnico, is sometimes too much. This Amendment guards the position in every way. There was the case the other day of a woman who had slaved to give her boy a good education and now that he is in a position he is not sending one single penny home. He is not very old. That is normal; but we do not want this Amendment for normal cases. In the ordinary case the mother will not say a word about it, but there are other cases where it will be very demoralising and we think a child should be guarded, and the parent also. I hope the Government will not reject the Amendment on the ground fiat they consider it is an insult to the child or the parent. Why should they assume that all parents are alike and all children alike? Hon. Members of this House are not all alike. We on this side are practical people and realise that very often
the children of the same parents are not alike. I cannot see why the Government should refuse to give help where it may be very much needed. Once more I ask the Government to take a practical point of view. Hon. Members opposite have shown throughout this Bill that they little understand some sort of women, whether they are rich or poor, and I ask the Committee to take the advice of a Woman who knows children. I am certain that hon. Members' wives, if asked, would say that they would rather have this safeguard. It is rot to ride off on the class conscious cry. We are told that on this side we do not understand the working man. We say that hon. Members on the Government side do not understand the working man. We are not insulting the working man.

Mr. HASLAM: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member in the Gallery to be standing all the time?

Viscountess ASTOR: I think that the new Clause shows an amazing understanding of women, and that the Minister of Labour in opposing it shows a real lack of understanding. I plead with the Government to accept the Clause.

Mr. POTTS: After having listened to hon. Members opposite I cannot for the life of me understand why they should have talked as they have done. There can be only two things to which they refer. Either they are unwilling to risk allowing a young boy to take a few shillings home to his parents, or they do not want the children of the working classes to mix with other people in connection with the receipt of unemployment benefit. Let me deal with the question of not being able to trust the young boys, and let me say where I stand. I have had over 40 years' experience in dealing with the children of working people. My experience is that these children almost universally can be trusted to take their wages to their parents. The argument that they cannot be trusted is as hollow as any argument can be. If hon. Members opposite think that young boys and girls cannot be trusted, it only goes to show that in their minds they believe that young boys and girls of the working classes are dishonest. [HON. MEMBERS:
"Rubbish!"] I hope that the Amendment will be pressed to a Division. Why should you ask the mother to get a few shillings from the Exchange? It is a reflection upon the children of the working classes.

Mr. LAWSON: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: I have had a long experience of people in industrial life. We have heard to-night of one or two cases of the very important age of 14 to 16, the adolescent age, when the child is growing mentally, psychologically and physically and how very important it is that at that age nothing should be done to upset the child in any way whatever. We have in the industrial districts the rule that a child of 15 is paid his wages and is entitled to take them home. What would be the effect on the child if sonic one turned round and said, "We cannot trust you to take your wages home. We cannot trust you to take your unemployment money home." That is immediately going to put into the child's mind a feeling of resentment and suspicion either that the people surrounding him do not trust him or, worse still, that his mother does not trust him and, therefore, I think a great deal of the argument that has been used on this side is really rather irrelevant, and I agree in the main with the arguments used by the Government. I think even those arguments are quite irrelevant. The money would be paid at the unemployment office to the child unless the mother in writing demanded it. I am sure there is no one opposite who would object to that. If the mother for some reason, probably a good reason, states that it is not in the child's interest that he should draw the money, and she went to the trouble of writing to that effect, I imagine every father in the Committee would say the mother was justified in her action and, therefore, this Clause is important. The question of not trusting the child does not arise and, therefore, all the opposition that has been offered has been quite unnecessary. But I should like to associate myself with the Members of the Government in their trust in the boys of the working class.

Mr. LAWSON: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 243.

Division No. 86.]
AYES.
[11.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. -Colonel
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Muirhead, A. J.


Albery, Irving James
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Aske, Sir Robert
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
O'Neill, Sir H.


Astor, Viscountess
Glassey, A. E.
Penny, Sir George


Atholl, Duchess of
Grace, John
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Granville, E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balniel, Lord
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Pybus, Percy John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Bird, Ernest Roy
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Birkett, W. Norman
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Blindell, James
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Remer, John R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Boyce, H. L.
Hartington, Marquess of
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bracken, B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Butt, Sir Alfred
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Savery, S. S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Scott, James


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Colville, Major D. J.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith Carington, Neville W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Edge, Sir William
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


England, Colonel A.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wells, Sydney R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Meller, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Everard, W. Lindsay
Millar, J. D.
Womersley, W. J.


Ferguson, Sir John
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fielden, E. B.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)



Foot, Isaac
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Major Owen and Viscount Elmley.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Broad, Francis Alfred
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Dickson, T.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bromfield, William
Dukes, C.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Bromley, J.
Duncan, Charles


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Brothers, M.
Ede, James Chuter


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Edmunds, J. E.


Alpass, J. H.
Buchanan, G.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Ammon, Charles George
Burgess, F. G.
Egan, W. H.


Angell, Norman
Caine, Derwent Hall-
Freeman, Peter


Arnott, John
Cameron, A. G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cape, Thomas
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Ayles, Walter
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Gibbins, Joseph


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Charleton, H. C.
Gill, T. H.


Barnes, Alfred John
Chater, Daniel
Gillett, George M.


Batey, Joseph
Church, Major A. G.
Gossling, A. G.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Clarke, J. S.
Gould, F.


Bellamy, Albert
Cluse, W. S.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Compton, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Benson, G.
Cove, William G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Groves, Thomas E.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Daggar, George
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bowen, J. W.
Dallas, George
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dalton, Hugh
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Shillaker, J. F.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shinwell, E.


Hardle, George D.
McShane, John James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mansfield, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Marcus, M.
Sinkinson, George


Haycock, A. W.
Marley, J.
Sitch, Charles H.


Hayday, Arthur
Mathers, George
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Hayes, John Henry
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Maxton, James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Melville, Sir James
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Messer, Fred
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mills, J. E.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Herriotts, J.
Milner, J.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Montague, Frederick
Sorensen, R.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Hoffman, P. C.
Morley, Ralph
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hollins, A.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Stephen, Campbell


Hopkin, Daniel
Mort, D. L.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Horrabin, J. F.
Moses, J. J. H.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Strauss, G. R.


Isaacs, George
Muff, G.
Sullivan, J.


Jenkins, w. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Sutton, J. E.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Murnin, Hugh
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Johnston, Thomas
Naylor, T. E.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oldfield, J. R.
Tinker, John Joseph


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Toole, Joseph


Kelly, W. T.
Palmer, E. T.
Tout, W. J.


Kennedy, Thomas
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Turner, B.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Perry, S. F.
Vaughan, D. J.


Kinley, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Kirkwood, D.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Walker, J.


Lang, Gordon
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wallace, H. W.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lathan, G.
Potts, John S.
Watkins, F. C.


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Lawrence, Susan
Raynes, W. R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Richards, R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lawson, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Ritson, J.
West, F. R.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Roberts, Rt. Hon.F. O. (W-Bromwich)
Westwood, Joseph


Lees, J.
Romeril, H. G.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Blrm., Ladywood)


Lindley, Fred W.
Rowson, Guy
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Longbottom, A. W.
Sanders, W. S.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Longden, F.
Sandham, E.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sawyer, G. F.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lunn, William
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson. J. (Oldham)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Scurr, John
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


MacDonald, Rt. Han. J. R. (Seaham)
Sexton, James
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


McElwee, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wise, E. F.


McEntee, V. L.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Mackinder, W.
Sherwood, G. H.



McKinlay, A.
Shield, George William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


MacLaren, Andrew
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




Paling.


Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to arrangements with associations of employed persons.)

Section seventeen of the principal Act as amended by Section ten of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, shall have effect as though in Sub-section (1) of the said Section ten all the words after 'the excess is payable in at least ten weeks in the year' were omitted.—[Mr. Hayday.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this Clause is to remedy an undoubted grievance which has confronted trades unions administering under the Act, more particularly during
the past two or three years. Under the Act as it stands a trade union administering must make its payment with every payment it makes on behalf of the State. During a long space of unemployment a member of a union may have run through the union unemployment benefit, which may be 5s. or 7s. a week until exhausted; but under the Act they must continue to make a payment of not less than 6d. per day as long as the person is unemployed. In that way you get a position which we desire to remedy and which will be remedied by this new Clause. When a member has run his unemployment pay through he must have his indirect claim
transferred to a direct claim and when the union brings him back into benefit he is retransferred from the Employment Exchange to the union. A deputation waited upon the late Minister of Labour and he certainly expressed sympathy with that point of view, and he certainly does understand and appreciate the difficulty which has grown up. I hope the Government will be able to accept this new Clause, because, if the Clause is carried, so long as it pays a minimum amount of 75s. in at least 10 weeks of the unemployment the union would be permitted to carry on the administration of the State side of the matter and not be compelled to transfer their member to the books of the Exchange.
This proposal saves the transfer from direct to indirect claims. It puts at the disposal of the members the available vacancy-filling machinery of the trade union, and it makes the process readily available in that connection. The trade union first meets the State benefit payment from its own funds, and it can only recover from the State such payments as it makes on behalf of the State; and that is a course which has the approval and sanction of the Minister of Labour, so that we use the trade union funds to meet the State responsibility, and there is a method of settlement which may, of course, be fortnightly or monthly. There is one other small point which which shows that trade union administration is very helpful to the general administration. In 1922 a statement was made that out of 614 convictions, there were only 20 of them through trade union administration, and those 20 were in respect of persons claiming direct.
The number represented by trade union administration was 25 per cent. of the whole of those receiving State benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am sure that there will be general agreement on this point, which is quite a small matter. It is a point which has the sympathy of the late Minister of Labour, and when we approached him he told us that his difficulty was the law at that time. We now ask that the law shall be varied to permit trade unions to have facilities without transferring to the Exchange and back again to the associations, a practice which makes
more work for the Employment Exchanges and loss of contact with the trade union administration.

Miss BONDFIELD: I have given much thought to this question, and this proposed new Clause seems to be entirely in line with the general sense of the Committee on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). We are doing everything we possibly can to develop responsibility on the part of the organised employers and the organised trade unions in the administration of the Fund. As the points have been so clearly expressed by the hon. Member who moved the Clause, it is unnecessary for me further to explain it, and I am glad to accept it.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Contributions not payable in, respect of persons under eighteen attending continuation schools.)

No contribution shall be paid in respect of any person under the age of eighteen who is under an obligation to attend a continuation school in accordance with the provisions of Sections seventy-six and seventy-seven of the Education Act, 1921.—[Lord E. Percy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Do I understand, Mr. Dunnico, that you are not calling the Clause—(Waiting period)—which stands in the names of the hon. Members for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare), Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) and Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha)?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I have not called that Clause.

Mr. MAXTON: Then the Clause—(Waiting period)—which stands later on the Paper, in the names of myself and several of my hon. Friends, will be called in its proper place?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not arrived at that point yet; I have called upon the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy).

Lord E. PERCY: The intention of the Clause which I am moving is that no contributions shall be demanded from a young person who is attending a compulsory day continuation school under the provisions of the Education Act, 1921. I think it has been the general feeling in this Committee that the exaction of contributions from young persons below the age of 16, and bringing them into the insurance field, is only justified because it is necessary to have some means of what is commonly called "bridging the gap" between school and insurance. We have spent a great deal of time in discussing how that gap may best be bridged by more or less makeshift educational arrangements under the juvenile employment centres and the like; but, however important juvenile employment centres may be, we agree that they are makeshifts, and that they can never be fully educational. The system of compulsory day continuation schools contemplated in the Act of 1918 was a complete method of bridging the gap. At the present moment the Act of 1918 is in force in one area in this country, namely, Rugby, and in that area the gap is already completely bridged, and every child, employed or unemployed, up to the age of 16, is receiving regular day education—part-time day education—in continuation classes. I hope that, if the finances of the country will allow it, that system will be greatly extended in the future, and I want to make it clear in this Clause that we do regard that education scheme as the true way of bridging the gap, and that, consequently, as the gap is bridged by solid educational provisions of that kind, we will take young persons again out of unemployment insurance.
The beginning that, we can make in doing that is to see that those who are already at school are not bound to pay contributions, and of course I assume it to follow that they should not be entitled to benefit. That is the purpose of the Clause, and I hope that, even if the right hon. Lady cannot accept it, either she or a representative of the Board of Education will give us some indication of the reason why it cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that this is a bridging of the gap which it is the firm intention of this Bill to bridge.

Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid I cannot accept this proposed new Clause, and that for a very simple reason. A child attending a public day continuation school is an employed person. The Bill is based on the assumption that as soon as an employer employs a boy or girl, he shall pay contributions into the fund in respect of that boy or girl. That is one of the principles underlying the Insurance Acts and we cannot exempt employers from contribution to the fund, nor should I wish to exempt the Treasury from contributions to the fund in respect of any employed person of whatever age, if such person is in fact a wage-earner. Apart from that consideration one can easily see that it would be very difficult to make an exception of the kind proposed in the new Clause. If the idea in the mind of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) is that children in that position should receive some encouragement, that is another matter but it should, I think, be dealt with in some other way and not by way of excusing them from contributions. One of the objections to the "gap" was that the employer could take children up to the age of 16 for whom he had not to pay contributions and dismiss them when they reached the age of 16. I do not want to perpetuate that evil in the 16 to 18 group.

Lord E. PERCY: Surely it is not a question of offering an inducement to the children. The children are under compulsion and have to attend the continuation school. I see the force of the right hon. Lady's intention and her desire to get rid of the old system under which an employer got an advantage by employing child labour. But she is not getting rid of it. There is still a differentiation between the contributions payable in respect of juveniles and those payable in respect of adults. If the Minister were proposing in the Bill to get rid of any incentive to employers to dismiss young persons when they attained the age of 18, I could then have understood her argument but she is not doing so in this Bill. I hope she has not considered her remarks too closely when she says she is setting up the great principle, that the moment a boy or girl is employed contribution shall be paid in respect of that boy or girl. Hitherto we have had
these proposals justified on the basis of "bridging the gap" but if we bridge the gap educationally then certainly—and whatever differences there may be between us on other points, we ought to agree about this—there is every reason for keeping those boys and girls outside

the insurance scheme with all its implications.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 112; Noes, 260.

Division No. 87.]
AYES.
[11.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Albery, Irving James
Ferguson, Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Remer, John R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Astor, Viscountess
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Balniel, Lord
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Savery, S. S.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H,
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hartington, Marquess of
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Boyce, H. L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smithers, Waldron


Bracken, B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Butler, R. A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. sir Arthur


Carver, Major w. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Long, Major Eric
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Cranbourne, Viscount
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Meller, R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wells, Sydney R.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Womersley, W. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Muirhead, A. J.



Duckworth, G. A. V.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sir George Hennessy and Sir George


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Penny.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Freeman, Peter


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Buchanan, G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Burgess, F. G.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Calne, Derwent Hall-
Gibbins, Joseph


Alpass, J. H.
Cameron, A. G.
Gill, T. H.


Ammon, Charles George
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Glassey, A. E.


Arnott, John
Charleton, H. C.
Gossling, A. G.


Aske, Sir Robert
Chater, Daniel
Gould, F.


Ayles, Walter
Church, Major A. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Clarke, J. S.
Granville, E.


Barnes, Alfred John
Cluse, W. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bellamy, Albert
Compton, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Daggar, George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Dallas, George
Groves, Thomas E.


Benson, G.
Dalton, Hugh
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Birkett, W. Norman
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Blindell, James
Dickson, T.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Dukes, C.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Bowen, J. W.
Duncan, Charles
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Bowerman Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Ede, James Chuter
Hardie, George D.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Edge, Sir William
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Brockway, A. Fenner
Edmunds, J. E.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Bromfield, William
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Haycock, A. W.


Bromley, J.
Egan, W. H.
Hayday, Arthur


Brothers, M.
Elmley, Viscount
Hayes, John Henry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Foot, Isaac
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Marley, J.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mathers, George
Sherwood, G. H.


Herriotts, J.
Matters, L. W.
Shield, George William


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Maxton, James
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Melville, Sir James
Shillaker, J. F.


Hoffman, P. C.
Messer, Fred
Shinwell, E.


Hollins, A.
Middleton, G.
Simmons, C. J.


Hopkin, Daniel
Millar, J. D.
Sinkinson, George


Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Mills, J. E.
Sitch, Charles H.


Horrabin, J. F.
Milner, J.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Montague, Frederick
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Isaacs, George
Money, Ralph
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Mort, D. L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Johnston, Thomas
Moses, J. J. H.
Sorensen, R.


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muff, G.
Stephen, Campbell


Jones, T. I, Mardy (Pontypridd)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Murnin, Hugh
Strauss, G. R.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Sullivan, J.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sutton, J. E.


Kelly, W. T.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Kennedy, Thomas
Oldfield, J. R.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Kinley, J.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Thurtle, Ernest


Kirkwood, D.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Tinker, John Joseph


Lang, Gordon
Paling, Wilfrid
Toole, Joseph


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Palmer, E. T.
Tout, W. J.


Lathan, G.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Turner, B.


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Perry, S. F.
Viant, S. P.


Lawrence, Susan
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Walker, J.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wallace, H. W.


Lawson, John James
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Watkins, F. C.


Lawther, w. (Barnard Castle)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Potts, John S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lees, J.
Pybus, Percy John
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lindley, Fred W.
Raynes, W. R.
West, F. R.


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Richards, R.
Westwood, Joseph


Longbottom, A. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Longden, F.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
White, H. G.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lunn, William
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W,Bromwich)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Romeril, H. G.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


McElwee, A.
Rowson, Guy
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


McEntee, V. L.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mackinder, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


McKinlay, A.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


MacLaren, Andrew
Sanders, W. S.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sandham, E.
Wise, E. F.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sawyer, G. F.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Scott, James
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


McShane, John James
Scrymgeour, E.



Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mansfield, W.
Sexton, James
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Marcus, M.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thomas Henderson.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Waiting period.)

Section three of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925, is hereby repealed and paragraph 1 of Part I of the First Schedule to the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Act, 1924 (which provides that benefit shall be payable in respect of each week after the first three days of a continuous period of unemployment) is hereby re-enacted in this Act.—[Mr. Maxton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of the new Clause is to reduce the waiting period from six days to three days. Everyone knows that the six days period may mean that a man who becomes unemployed may have to go
the best part of three weeks before any money goes into his home. The principle of the new Clause has been well admitted in the past. It was admitted in the 1924 Unemployment Act, which was brought in by the previous Labour Government, and presumably the arguments in favour of it in those days are even more cogent now, having regard to the long duration of unemployment, generally. I have been told that the only reasons against it are financial, but I cannot feel that the finances of the country in 1929 are in any worse plight than in 1924. There are no evidences in trade or in the taxation returns that indicate that they are, nor do I believe that
the Chancellor's powers of taxation today are less than they were at that period. I think the present Government is much more favourably situated for conceding this demand than was the 1924 Government when the point was raised. I have no wish to detain the Committee and will content myself with moving the Clause.

Miss BONDFIELD: This matter has received a very great deal of consideration, and, if I could have seen my way to embody it in the Bill I would have done so. It is perfectly true, as has been said, that the objection to it is a financial one. It is a very heavy item indeed, and it has to be considered in relation to the present state of the Fund. When this was moved in 1924 by the then Labour Government, the Fund had only a £7,000,000 deficit and had by no means exhausted, and had not trespassed very far upon, its borrowing powers. To-day, we have the Fund with a debt of £38,000,000, and its borrowing powers nearly exhausted. That fact makes the situation very much worse financially than it was when the Labour Government was in office in 1924. It is with very much regret that I have to refuse to accept the Clause.

Major ELLIOT: Obviously, as the Minister has advanced the argument that the state of the fund precludes the suggested improvement in the benefits, it would not be possible for us on this side to oppose that argument. It has been pointed out on more than one occasion that the fund is heavily in debt, and, balanced as it is at a figure which is below the figure of the present state of unemployment, it is not in a position to be loaded with fresh commitments. An important fresh commitment has been entered into as a result of the Debate last Thursday. Therefore, we on this side find ourselves compelled to back up the Minister in the view that the fund in its present state is not able to bear any fresh commitments.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I support the Clause, notwithstanding the Minister's statement that the fund is overloaded. The position I take up is that the sufferers from unemployment ought not to be penalised by a position for which they are not in any way responsible. We can realise the difficulty from the standpoint of the Chancellor of the Exchequer;
but, from the point of view of those who are making most urgent claims on Members of this House as to the difficulties which are confronting them in the way of life, they should not be held back and prevented from getting their legitimate rights of which they have been deprived, because of conditions for which they are no more than partly responsible along with the general body of the nation. They ought not to be penalised for such a situation, and I certainly hope that a protest will be made in the Division Lobby by Members on this side.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I only rise for the purpose of putting two questions to the right hon. Lady. In the first place, I should like to know what burden this will place on the Unemployment Insurance Fund? She has said that the fund is not in a condition to support this burden. I think we are entitled to know what it would mean. I believe that the cost would be about £4,000,000; or rather that it would be the interest upon that sum, because if the Lord Privy Seal is successful in finding work for the 1,300,000 people who are unemployed the Unemployment Insurance Fund would recoup the amount. The annual charge would be about £200,000. Does the right hon. Lady realise that by resisting this new Clause—I do not support it—she is throwing a burden on local authorities. These men have to be supported, and if a man goes out of work and does not get any benefit for 10 days he is thrown upon the ratepayers in the meantime. Therefore, the second question I have to ask is, when the right hon. Lady intends to implement the pledge that was given by the party opposite to make unemployment a national and not a local charge. The answers to these questions are distinctly relevant to the new Clause and would help hon. Members to decide which way they should vote. The fact that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has moved it proves that it is a non-party Amendment. He has moved it from an impartial point of view, and I think he is entitled, and the Committee is entitled, to know exactly what the right hon. Lady means when she says that the Unemployment Insurance Fund cannot bear the burden how much burden is going to be thrown on local authorities, and when unemployment is going to be made a national charge.

Major HARVEY: The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) is not quite correct when he says that all these people will be thrown upon the rates, because local authorities give this relief as a loan and on condition that they will be repaid when the man gets work. It is not strictly correct to say that they are thrown upon the rates.

Earl WINTERTON: Before the right hon. Lady replies I should like to draw attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). The hon. Member who moved the new Clause is perfectly consistent. He has taken up a line with which we on this side do not agree and with which the Government do not agree, but at any rate it has been a consistent line. The right hon. Lady hast any rate it has been a consistent line. The right hon. Lady has quite rightly, from the point of view of the Department whose finances she has to look after, resisted the proposal. But what is the attitude of the hon. Member for Devonport? What has become of the old tradition of the Liberal party, retrenchment—

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I was asking a question.

Earl WINTERTON: Everyone who heard the speech of the hon. Member knows perfectly well that he was pushing the Government forward and involving them in yet further expenditure. It is curious that we have all these speeches from Members of the Liberal party everyone in favour of putting fresh burdens on the fund and on the taxpayer, and it would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) is going to support the hon. Member for Devonport in putting another charge on the Insurance Fund.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Certainly I support my hon. Friend in asking the Minister to answer the very relevant questions put to her.

Commander WILLIAMS: The Minister says that the state of the finances makes it impossible for her to provide a sum of

money which has not been stated. Would she tell us what the leaders of her party said at the time when the proposal for the shortening of the period from six days to three was being advocated? A few quotations from speeches of the leaders at the time would be of interest to the Committee?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am sorry if I did not give the information required. The sum required—it can be only a rough estimate—is from £3,500,000 to £4,000,000. To this you have to add the attraction of the reduced waiting period, and that is incalculable.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is that what falls on the local authorities?

Miss BONDFIELD: Obviously not. Take the case of a man who has been in employment but comes out of employment—I except the case of the dockers, who are in and out frequently—the case of the man who comes out of employment. He does not, in fact, generally come under the Poor Law. That is not the highly necessitous end of the thing at all. The terrible thing is when a man is out of work for two or 2½ years, and has not a scrap of anything at the back of him. The case rests upon abstract justice, upon the contributions that the ordinary man pays and which should entitle him to have a three-days' waiting period. But the fact is that I am giving so many concessions in other directions under this Bill that I have already overstepped the limits, and I cannot go any further.

Mr. D. SOMERVILLE: What does the Minister mean by the attraction?

Miss BONDFIELD: That is a word very frequently used in connection with this class of case. We do not know the number of additional persons who would claim if there were only a three-days' limit.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 279.

Division No. 88.]
AYES.
[12.5 a.m.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Sandham, E.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Kelly, W. T.
Scrymgeour, E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Simmons, C. J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Stephen, Campbell


Groves, Thomas E.
Lees, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Haycock, A. W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gossling, A. G.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Greene, W. p. Crawford
Muggeridge, H. T.


Albery, Irving James
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)
Muirhead, A. J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, Hugh


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Naylor, T. E.


Arnott, John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Astor, Viscountess
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Ayles, Walter
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon, William


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Illord)
Paling, Wilfrid


Balniel, Lord
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Penny, Sir George


Barnes, Alfred John
Hartington, Marquess of
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Perry, S. F.


Bellamy, Albert
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hayes, John Henry
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Benson, G.
Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Ramsbotham, H.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Raynes, W. R.


Bowen, J. W.
Herrlotts, J.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Richards, R.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Boyce, H. L.
Hoffman, P. C.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Bracken, B.
Hollins, A.
Ritson, J.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hopkin, Daniel
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Bromfield, William
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Romeril, H. G.


Bromley, J.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Brothers, M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Rowson, Guy


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Burgess, F. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butler, R. A.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cameron, A. G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Sanders, W. S.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Sawyer, G. F.


Carver, Major W. H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Scurr, John


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth,S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sexton, James


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Lang, Gordon
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Chater, Daniel
Lathan, G.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Church, Major A. G.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Sherwood, G. H.


Clarke, J. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Shield, George William


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawson, John James
Shillaker, J. F.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shinwell, E.


Compton, Joseph
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sinkinson, George


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sitch, Charles H.


Cranbourne, Viscount
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lindley, Fred W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Long, Major Eric
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Daggar, George
Lunn, William
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Dallas, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smithers, Waldron


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McElwee, A.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McEntee, V. L.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Dickson, T.
Mackinder, W.
Sorensen, R.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Dukes, C.
McShane, John James
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Duncan, Charles
Mansfield, W.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Ede, James Chuter
Marcus, M.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Edge, Sir William
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Edmunds, J. E.
Marley, J.
Strauss, G. R.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Egan, W. H.
Mathers, George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Matters, L. W.
Sullivan, J.


Ferguson, Sir John
Melville, Sir James
Sutton, J. E.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Messer, Fred
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Freeman, Peter
Middleton, G.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Millar, J. D.
Thurtle, Ernest


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Milner, J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mond, Hon. Henry
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Toole, Joseph


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Montague, Frederick
Tout, W. J.


Gill, T. H.
Morley, Ralph
Turner, B.




Turton, Robert Hugh
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Vaughan, D. J.
Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Wells, Sydney R.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Viant, S. P.
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Walker, J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Wallace, Capt D. E. (Hornsey)
West, F. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Wallace, H. W.
Westwood, Joseph
Womersley, W. J.


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Warrender, Sir Victor
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)



Watkins, F. C.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Charles




Edwards.


Question put, and agreed to.

First Schedule (Weekly Rates of Unemployment Benefit in Case of Persons under the Age of Twenty-one Years), Second Schedule (Minor Amendments), and Third Schedule (Enactments Repealed) agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 96.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BOOTLE WATER RATE) ORDER, 1929.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Local Government (Bootle Water Rate) Order, 1929, dated the 26th day of September, 1929, made by the Minister of Health under Section 130 of the Local Government Act, 1929 (19 and 20 Geo. V., c. 17), for the removal of difficulties arising in connection with the application of certain provisions of that Act to the city of Liverpool and the county borough of Bootle, which was presented on the 29th day of October, 1929, be approved."—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Object!

Mr. GREENWOOD: I did not anticipate opposition, and I wanted to say a word in explanation of this Order. I gathered in conversations which I have had with hon. Members on the opposite side that it is not controversial, but that it was desired that some explanation should be made. The House will remember that, under the Local Government Act, power was given for the removal of certain minor difficulties. A case has arisen which affects Liverpool and Bootle. Under a private Act promoted by the Liverpool Corporation—

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: On a point of Order. If the Order is objected to, is the Minister in order in giving an explanation?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill may be objected to, but it can be proceeded with.

Commander WILLIAMS: I do object.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Eleven o'Clock Rule has been suspended; besides, this is an Order and not a Bill.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: The Rule was suspended for one thing, and for one thing alone.

Mr. SPEAKER: This, I understand, is similar to a Gas Order, and is exempted business.

Mr. GREENWOOD: If hon. Members do not wish to hear the explanation, I have no special desire to give it. It is a simple matter, dealing with a difficulty which could not have been foreseen when the Local Government Act was passed. As I was saying when I was interrupted, by the Liverpool Corporation Act, passed eight years ago, it was arranged that a water rate of 6d. in the £ should be levied both in Liverpool and in Bootle. The rate in Bootle is actually levied by the Liverpool City Corporation. When the Local Government Act was passed certain difficulties arose because it took the smile definition of a local rate as was contained in the Rating and Valuation Act. The result of that is that a rate levied by the Liverpool City Corporation on Bootle is not a local rate within the meaning of the Act. The Bootle Corporation desire that Liverpool should continue to levy this particular water rate, and Liverpool is prepared to do so, but this curious circumstance has arisen, that the rate in Liverpool ranks for de-rating—I hope I shall have hon. Members opposite with me on this—and is to be taken into account in calculating the Exchequer grant, whereas the same rate in Bootle, because it is levied by the Liverpool Corporation, will not rank for de-rating. In Liverpool all industrial hereditaments will be de-rated in respect of this rate, while in Bootle they will not be.
It is not for me to argue whether particular hereditaments should be de-
rated or not; that question was settled in the last Parliament. But we are, as a result of the Act of 1929, faced with this situation, that unless we get this Order people of precisely the same class, possibly competitors in business, in adjacent boroughs, will find themselves in entirely different circumstances. If this Order is passed it will enable us to declare that the Bootle water rate shall be regarded as a local rate, so that industrial enterprises in Bootle shall be de-rated and be on the same footing as those in Liverpool. I was informed that this was a question on which there could be no difference of opinion. We are not discussing the rights and wrongs of the Local Government Act, but a difficulty which has arisen with which this House is empowered to deal.

Earl WINTERTON: I understand this Order is based largely on the De-rating Act, and is intended to give a certain local authority advantages under that Act. It would not be in order to discuss de-rating on this occasion, but I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's commendations of it. [Interruption.] Oh, yes; otherwise the right hon. Gentleman would not be bringing in this Order. He used the phrase that the Order was intended to confer the advantages of the De-rating Act, and I do not know what other meaning can be attached to those words. [Interruption.] I take it to mean that the Act has advantages. If the right hon. Gentleman meant something else, he did not say so.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Equality of treatment.

Earl WINTERTON: At any rate, he appears to be converted to the Act today. I was going to say that he need not have taken up such an aggressive attitude when he rose to move the Order. [Interruption.] There was no reason why he should have been aggressive to those on this side of the House. The question was not whether—[Interruption.] There was no reason, I repeat, why he should have been aggressive. The question was not whether we on this side of the House objected to the Order, but whether the right hon. Gentleman, by the ordinary arrangements come to through the ordinary channels, was or was not entitled to take the business at this late hour. That was the only
point at issue. The right hon. Gentleman, to the surprise of this side of the House, adopted towards us a rather aggressive attitude. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, certainly. [Interruption.] I intend to say this. It is not the least use trying to interrupt me. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman and his friends that if they wish to get this sort of business through—[Interruption]—if they wish to get their business through at this hour they must ask for permission through the ordinary channels. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of some conversation he had had with a right hon. Gentleman on my left. In future, when he wishes to get these Orders through let him ask for permission to do so from the Opposition through the ordinary channels, and not adopt towards the Opposition an attitude which is a mixture of aggressiveness and discourtesy.

Mr. MACKINDER: You never have any other attitude.

Commander WILLIAMS: I have no particular objection to this Order, but there are one or two points on which I should like more enlightenment. It is quite clear that this Order is to meet an exceptional case, but I would like to ask whether there is any likelihood of similar Orders having to be issued. [Interruption]. It is a very serious point. It may concern people in a great many towns, and if hon. Members below the Gangway do not choose to look after the interests of the nation that is no reason why others should not. It is quite conceivable that other places may be in the same position as Bootle and Liverpool. Plymouth and Devonport may be, or Edinburgh and Leith.

Mr. E. BROWN: Edinburgh and Leith are one city now.

Commander WILLIAMS: I know they are one city, but exceptional circumstances may arise there, and I think the hon. Member ought to be very careful, or he may be let down. It would be a terrible position if he should be left in the dark and could not say anything. I really would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Order knows if there are any similar cases likely to arise. Another point I wish to know about this very, very curious Order is whether the Govern-
ment have taken the advice of the Law Officers to see whether this is really good law or not. I know that the Law Officers are not here; they very rarely are. As it seems, on these occasions, that there is always someone to step into the breach, I wonder if the Secretary of State for War could step in?

Mr. T. SHAW: I am already one foot in.

Commander WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has already put his foot in it—at least I conclude that that is what he said. But I do think that the House is entitled to an answer to the two questions—firstly, whether any similar cases are likely to arise; and, secondly, whether the Government have consulted the Law Officers.

Mr. E. BROWN: The zeal of the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) for light at this hour of the morning in 1929 is amusing. If that zeal fox light had been exhibited, as it was not, in the debates of 1926 and 1927 when his own Government was passing an Act in regard to which this Order seeks to remedy one small anomaly, then I could understand his attitude; but he is not entitled to talk now. He did not make his voice heard in the darkness of 1926. I would like to add that when the matter of finance is discussed no one has ever denied that you can spend £24,000,000 without doing someone some good. The argument is as to how much better the money could be spent in such a way that it would do most good.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the merits of the De-rating Act?

Mr. SPEAKER: I should say not.

Mr. BROWN: I do not mind how long this discussion goes on because I have lost my last tram, and, unlike the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams), I have not a Rolls-Royce. I only wish to say, in conclusion, that this desirable light is very belated on the part of the Conservative party.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): In answer to the two questions that have been asked, I desire to say that we do not know of
any other such anomalies in the Acts, but, if such a one be discovered, we will bring up a similar Order. Now, as to whether a legal opinion has been given to us on this matter. It has, and I will read it:
There is grave doubt as to whether the conjoint effect of the Local Act of 1921, the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, the Rating and Valuation (Bootle Water Rate) Order, 1927, and the Local Government Act, 1929, is that the water rate as levied in Bootle is a rate to which the Act of 1929 applies, and consequently there is grave doubt as to the extent, if any, to which the de-rating provisions of that Act apply to it, and, as a further consequence, there is grave doubt as to whether there is any loss of rates arising under the Act of 1929 which can be taken into account in calculating the new Exchequer grants provided for in that Act.
Consequently, we have introduced this Order. Though, personally, I think the Act of 1929 is a grave misfortune for Liverpool, I do not think that Bootle, of all county boroughs, should be made to suffer inequalities.

Captain GUNSTON: I wish to thank the hon. Lady for the very clear way in which she has dealt with this point. It was for such cases as this that there was put into the Act the provision giving the Minister power to remove difficulties that were bound to arise. I am also glad to see that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is at last getting a little light on this subject.

Resolved,
That the Local Government (Bootle Water Rate) Order, 1929, dated the 26th day of September, 1929, made by the Minister of Health under Section 130 of the Local Government Act, 1929 (19 and 20 Geo. V., c. 17), for the removal of difficulties arising in connection with the application of certain provisions of that Act to the city of Liverpool and the county borough of Bootle, which was presented on the 29th day of October, 1929, be approved.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Halstead Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 4th day of November and published,
be approved, with the addition of the following Clause after Clause 33 of the draft Order:—

For protection of the Essex County Council.

For the protection of the county council of the administrative county of Essex (in this Section called 'the county council') the following provisions shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing between the company and the county council, apply and have effect within the limits of supply (that is to say):—

(1) In the case of any trunk mains to be laid down by the company under the powers of this Order the company shall not permit any trench made by them in any main road vested in and maintainable by the county council to be open for a greater consecutive distance than four hundred yards, if in such length of four hundred yards there is not room throughout for two carts to pass one another, and in the case of any other main to be laid down in any such road under the powers of this Order there shall not in like circumstances be more than two hundred consecutive yards in length of trench open at any one time, and the company shall, if and when required by the county council or their surveyor, provide to the satisfaction of the county council for the regulation of traffic while any trench referred to in this Sub-section shall remain open;
(2) In approving the plan to be delivered to the county council under Section 9 of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, the county council may require that all mains and pipes of the company shall, wherever practicable, be laid in or at the side of the road, and if any main or pipe of the company shall be laid below the surface of the carriageway of any main road at a depth of less than two feet the county council shall not be liable for or in respect of any damage or injury which may be caused to such main or pipe by the use by the county council of any steam or other roller for the repair of any such road or of any traction engine belonging to the county council provided that such roller or engine does not exceed twelve tons in weight;
(3) In the case of any main or pipe which it is reasonably necessary to lay otherwise than in the roadway over any county or main road bridge vested in the county council, the same shall be carried on the structure of any such bridge in such manner as the county council may, in writing under the hand of their surveyor, reasonably direct and, except as aforesaid, the company shall not interfere with the structural part of any county or main road bridge without the consent in writing of the surveyor of the county council, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld;
426
(4) The provisions of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, with respect to the breaking-up of streets for the purpose of laying pipes as modified by this section shall, in their application to the laying of any pipe in such mails road, county or main road bridge, and the roadway over and approaches to such bridge, be read and construed as if the notice required by Section eight of that Act was not less than seven clear days instead of three clear days;
(5) The exercise of any of the powers of the company within the limits of supply shall not interfere with, prejudice, or affect the right of the county council at any time to alter the level of or deviate or improve in any manner they think fit any main road in or along which any mains or pipes of the company shall have been laid, and the company shall, on receiving notice in writing under the hand of the clerk or surveyor of the county council so to do, alter with all reasonable dispatch the position of any such mains, pipes, or works in the manner and to the extent prescribed by such notice or as, in case of difference, shall be determined by arbitration in the manner hereinafter prescribed, and the county council shall repay to the company the expenses reasonably incurred by the company in effecting any such alteration;
(6) The exercise of any powers of the company under this order within the limits of supply shall not prejudice or affect the right of the county council at any time to remove, alter, rebuild, widen, or repair any county or main road bridge or the approaches to any such bridge or the roadway over the same in, over, or attached to which any mains, pipes, or works of the company are carried in the same manner as the county council might have removed, altered, rebuilt, widened, or repaired such bridge, roadway, or the approaches if this order had not been made, and such mains, pipes, or works had not been so laid or attached, and the county council shall not be required to repay to the company any expense to which the company may be put by reason or in consequence of any such removal, alteration, rebuilding, widening, or reparation, but the county council shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent injury to the works of the company, and shall pay compensation for any loss which the company may sustain by reason of any such injury. In the event of any such bridge, roadway, or approaches being removed, altered, rebuilt, widened, or repaired as aforesaid the company shall at their own cost in all things alter the position of any such mains or pipes carried in, over, or attached to such bridge or approaches as aforesaid in such manner as the county council or their surveyor may reasonably direct;

427
Provided that during any such removal, alteration, rebuilding, widening, or reparation the county council shall afford to the company all reasonable facilities for temporarily carrying such mains, pipes, and works across any stream or river so as not to interrupt the continuous supply of gas or to diminish the pressure of such supply through such mains or pipes, and the company may carry such mains, pipes, and works accordingly;
(7) If the company shall after reasonable notice from the county council, under the hand of their surveyor, neglect to do or complete any work or act required by Sub-sections (5) and (6) of this section to be done by the company then and in any such case the county council may do such work or act themselves under the superintendence (if given) of the company completing the same with all reasonable expedition and in a proper and workmanlike manner, and causing as little damage or inconvenience to the company as circumstances admit, and in respect of any work or act required by Subsection (6) the company shall repay to the county council the reasonable cost of doing any such work or act;
(8) The county council shall not execute any works under this section or enforce any of the provisions of this section so that the supply of gas by the company shall be interrupted, and if the county council so interrupt, or cause to be interrupted, the supply of gas they shall repay to the company any loss, damage, or expenses to which the company may thereby be put or become subject;
(9) If any difference at any time arises between the county council and the company touching this section, or anything to be done or not to be done thereunder, such difference shall be settled by an arbitrator to be agreed upon between them or, failing agreement, to be appointed on the application of either party by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers and, subject as aforesaid, the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall apply to any such reference to arbitration as aforesaid."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]

Commander WILLIAMS: May I have some explanation of this Gas Order? I notice that it is quite different from the ordinary Gas Orders. In fact, I should not like to comment on it, because it is so very long. I would ask particularly that we might have some explanation of paragraph (6), which provides that the exercise of any powers of the company under this Order shall not prejudice or affect the rights of the county council. That seems to me a provision that I have not read very often before.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: This is a very long and complicated Order. I would particularly like to have some explanation of paragraph (2), which says that the county council shall not be liable for damage caused to pipes in certain circumstances. I should like to know whether any other unfortunate owner is to pay if he does the same?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): In the case of this Order there were certain objections raised by the county council and the railway company. After consultation, the railway company agreed to withdraw, but the county council was not so minded, and an attempt was made to hold these points over for an inquiry to be held. That was not found to be possible, and, rather than hold the proceedings up for a longer period, it was agreed to add this paragraph. All opposition to the Order has been withdrawn.

Earl WINTERTON: Does not this paragraph (2) come to some extent in conflict with the new Road Traffic Bill before the House of Lords? Are there not provisions in that Bill regarding the damage done to roads?

Mr. SMITH: I am afraid it is rather difficult for me to answer as to how far this Order will clash with any proposed legislation. If there is any such difficulty, that is surely a matter for legislation in this House.

Commander WILLIAMS: The hon. Member has not explained paragraph (6). May I have an explanation? I am sure the hon. Member would wish—

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member for Torquay (Commander Williams) in order in speaking twice on the one question?

Mr. SPEAKER: He is only asking a question.

Commander WILLIAMS: I am trying to ask the question in such a way that the Minister may have time to get the answer. If he has got it now, I will come to the end of the question. If, on the other hand, he has not got it, I will amplify my question so as to be still in order. But I conclude, as he has returned to his seat, that he has got an answer. Of course, if he would like me
to amplify my question, so that he can consider his answer, then I am prepared to do so.

Mr. SMITH: It is impossible for me to give a detailed explanation. As all opposition has been withdrawn to the Order, it is not unusual that it should be placed on the Paper to be dealt with in the way that we are asking, and I think it is usual, if points are to be raised, for information to be given in advance in order to enable the necessary inquiries to be made to answer the points. I can only repeat that the whole position now is agreed between the contending parties concerned in this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: It is surely unusual for a Minister to come

down with a long Order like this and not know a single word of it.

Lord E. PERCY: I perhaps have not been in this House a very long time, but I have never before heard such an excuse made by any Minister. The fact that a notice of this sort is put on the Paper is entirely the business of the Government. When has it even been ruled before that notice should be given in advance of any questions that may be put about an Order on the Paper? In view of the extraordinary statement which we have heard, I think we must press the Government to postpone this Order until we can discuss it.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 46.

Division No. 89.]
AYES.
[12.42 a.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Raynes, W. R.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Ritson, J.


Arnott, John
Kelly, W. T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Romeril, H. G.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Lathan, G.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bellamy, Albert
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Scurr, John


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Lawson, John James
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Lees, J.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowen, J. W.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shillaker, J. F.


Buchanan, G.
Lindley, Fred W.
Simmons, C. J.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Longbottom, A. W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Chater, Daniel
Longden, F.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Church, Major A. G.
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Clarke, J. S.
Mackinder, W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Cluse, W. S.
McKinlay, A.
Sorensen, R.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McShane, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Marley, J.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Daggar, George
Mathers, George
Sullivan, J.


Dallas, George
Matters, L. W.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Maxton, James
Thurtle, Ernest


Dickson, T.
Melville, Sir James
Toole, Joseph


Duncan, Charles
Middleton, G.
Tout, W. J.


Ede, James Chuter
Mills, J. E.
Vaughan, D. J.


Edmunds, J. E.
Milner, J.
Walker, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wallace, H. W.


Gill, T. H.
Morley, Ralph
Watkins, F. C.


Gossling, A. G.
Mort, D. L.
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Moses, J. J. H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Haycock, A. W.
Oldfield, J. R.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Paling, Wilfrid
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Hoffman, P. C.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wise, E. F.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.



Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Albery, Irving James
Butler, R. A.
Glassey, A. E.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Colville, Major D. J.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Beaumont, M. W.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hartington, Marquess of


Boyce, H. L.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bracken, B.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Womersley, W. J.


Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Smithers, Waldron



Mond, Hon. Henry
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Captain Euan Wallace.


Muirhead, A. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor



Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Watford Gas and Coke Company, which was presented on the 19th day of November and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]

Commander WILLIAMS: As far as this Order is concerned, I know the Minister is sublimely innocent, so I shall not press for details to-night. I have no desire to be personally rude to him, but, knowing that these Gas Orders always have been criticised, it is amazing to me that he did not know about
the first Order. In future, I feel sure that he will come prepared with all the details.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Ten Minutes before One o'Clock.